Halcro, I will offer some further thoughts day after tomorrow when I will have some time.
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
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 ”mm. A new needle is about 3 ”mm 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 ninetynineâs 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. âContextâ: I donât 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 âpreferencesâ. I donât seek nor particularly enjoy constant or endless equipment churning. For me, when discussing aspects of this hobby it is not a competition. I donât judge someone elseâs 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 âabsolute soundâ. The word âneutralâ is often bandied about as if any of this gear actually even gets close to being neutral in the true sense of the word. âPreferencesâ: My âpreferenceâ 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. Â I feel the same way about electrostatic speakers. I have never heard a midrange as tonally natural as that from my Stax ELS F-81âs. 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 donât 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 MMâs lack in the areas of natural tonal colors and the very fine and subtle details in the texture of the sound of live instruments. Â They often (not always) impart a gray or slightly bleached quality to timbres. Not just because of the fact that I use tubes. Â I have consistently heard that quality in these comparisons with the notable exception of one or two of the Victor cartridges. Â âDated/modern cartridgesâ: I am a bit confused by your comment. First, I will point out that I did not say âcurrentâ MCâs. 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 â70s if cartridges like the Benz Ruby 3, Shelter 901, VDHâs, MonsterSG2000 and others cannot be considered âmodernâ cartridge designs then I guess I am even more behind the times than I thought âčïž. 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 ATâs that have been compared here. Needless to say, I donât agree that there has been no progress in cartridge design. Â I also donât agree with the often stated notion that because âwe all hear differentlyâ this accounts for different âpreferencesâ. First this idea may or may not be true and I donât understand enough about the biology involved to have an informed opinion. However, here is why I donât think the notion, true or not, is relevant. Letâs 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 âbestâ (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 canât all be âneutralâ while sounding so different. We may âpreferâ 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 âmeaningful dialogueâ. And why not? I wonât 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 đ. Best. |
I am a bit confused by your comment. First, I will point out that I did not say âcurrentâ MCâs.ÂBut you did call the sound of the FR-7f and 7fz "dated"...... 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.ÂYour use of the term "modern MC cartridges" to me.....seemed to imply 'current' đ§ You have to admit, that the term "dated" has negative connotations...? If I were to call 'tube technology' "dated"......it would sound 'judgemental'...although technically accurate. In MY world..and IME and YMMV etc etc......the 'dated' cartridges (pre-digital) often sound more realistic, transparent and 'alive' (as opposed to 'live') than "modern MC cartridges". So on this....we must agree to differ đ On most other things...I agree with you đ I think "tube equipment captures/reproduces more of the nuances in the sound, texture and expression in the sound of live music than does solid state." I lived with a complete tube phono/line preamp for 20 years and loved it. As good as the Halcro DM10 preamp is (and it is)....it can't quite capture the 'air', transparency and three-dimensionality of tubes. I tried many tube amplifiers in my system but unfortunately....because my 12" undamped paper-cone woofers are run 'full range' (no crossovers)....tubes did not have the damping factor needed to control the woofers đą I also agree about electrostatic speakers.... The best speakers I ever heard (in terms of realism and transparency) were the original Martin Logan CLS driven by Audio Research tube amplification. Their sound is permanently embedded in my consciousness even after 25 years has passed. And their midrange to high frequency presentation, is the benchmark in everything I try to achieve in my system. We are now, two generations into the 'digital music' age, with most people on the planet having heard little else other than CD and digital music presentation. To this day....I cannot sit and listen to CDs on my system for longer than 20 minutes without feeling annoyed and uncomfortable. Whereas your brain is finely tuned to instrumental realism....mine is somehow 'wired' to reject 'digital'...đ€Ż I can discern very quickly, whether an analogue record has been digitally recorded...and unfortunately for me.....they are never (up to this point)...as musically satisfying. Because of this 'digital age' which has inevitably engulfed us....I feel that  'modern' cartridge designers have (perhaps unknowingly) tried to emulate some of the perceived digital 'advantages' like increased high-frequency detail in the belief that it is perceived as 'more revealing...đ Now in regards to Screaming Jay Hawkins.....are you trying to imply that he is not classically trained.....đ Regards Henry |
As I reported a couple of months ago.....I acquired a NOS SHURE LEVEL II MM with a BERYLLIUM CANTILEVER Recommended by Chakster....this F-8 LEVEL II/Beryllium impressed me. A few weeks later....I managed to find a NOS SHURE LEVEL II with a RUBY CANTILEVER. A chance to see if there are any perceptible differences between the F-8 LEVEL II/Ruby and its Beryllium brother. SHURE LEVEL II/Beryllium SHURE LEVEL II/Ruby |
- 628 posts total