Hear my Cartridges....🎶


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.....🤪
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.....🤗
128x128halcro
But, some get closer to it than others.  And that is what I hear and try to describe.  The differences may be very subtle, but they are there.  To me, the Decca sounds closer to the sound of music as I know it than the Shure does.  So, if that is to be the case, then there have to be differences between the two.  I suspect that you are reacting more strongly to what I am describing as the differences (and reason for the preference) than is warranted?  Also keep in mind that, as should be obvious, that for me the most important aspect of all this is to all issues.  For me that is the most important aspect of it all.  
I get it Frogman....🤗
And I appreciate how as a musician....this is surely the most important thing for you.
For me however....there are too many variables in the performance, recording-quality, mastering, editing, cutting and stamping of the vinyl discs that I am not consciously 'comparing' the sound to 'live music'.
I've been to so many live concerts (classical, rock, electronic, reggae, jazz) that I know, when the sound is at its best (and particularly with amplified music)......there is no way that a recording can compete with the guttural, body-tingling, stomach-churning, ear-splitting and mind-blowing sound of 'LIVE' music.
Conversely.....when the live sound is POORLY produced (at the mixing desk with amplified music or due to the acoustics of the venue or seating position with unamplified music)....I can easily prefer the sound I achieve at home.
So despite the fact that the instruments are 'REAL' and their sounds are 'AUTHENTIC'....if the END RESULT is flawed in any way.....I am not moved 🥶

HERE is a concert I attended a few years ago in Ravello (Italy) performed by the Shenzhen Symphony Orchestra on a clifftop overlooking the Amalfi Coast.
Despite the presence of 65 live musicians playing REAL instruments in open air.....the 'sound' was abysmal!!!!
I firstly sat in the middle, three rows back and could not believe what I was hearing...
No oomph, no bass, no dynamics, no 'soundstage', little volume and definitely no MAGIC 😱.
I changed my seating on 5 occasions to see if the sound might improve with elevation or positioning....all to no avail.

When I listen to a particular cartridge in my system at home....It needs to have the tonal balance from lower bass, mid-bass, midrange to treble reasonably balanced.
The midrange to me is fundamental....
If it is not convincing and doesn't reproduce a palpable three dimensionality to my ears....it fails.
The important differences I hear between cartridges are in their presentations of 'Soundstage'...side to side, front to back, illusion of depth, separation of instruments and the air around them.

As much as I like the LDR.....the Ultra 500 goes slightly down lower with more authority  in the bass. The 'highs' on the Ultra 500 have slightly more 'air' and 'transparency'.
The LDR is definitely not a 'soundstage' champ 👎
Its 'width' remains inside the two speakers whereas the Ultra 500 extends past the outsides of both.
The LDR has little 'back' depth and virtually no forward projection whereas the Ultra 500 fairly 'bulges' in a parabolic manner INTO the listening room so that if I turn the volume really high...I fear it might 'push' against me 😝

These characteristics I believe, may only be apparent from my listening position 'in situ'.
We can't expect them to be heard or appreciated over a Youtube video...
And that's why I think we are not quite connecting Frogman...🤔

But then I'm surprised you manage to hear ANY of the distinctions you so ably describe via such a limited medium..
I'll keep 'em coming as long as you keep liking and contributing...🥳

Regards

Halcro, thanks for the additional comments. Just a few more from me; not as a challenge to any of yours, but to further explain how the process works for me.
As you acknowledged, my (and most musicians’) priorities in reproduced sound are timbre and rhythm; and not necessarily in that order. That’s where the “magic” is for me. We all listen for different things and prioritize different aspects of recorded sound. As fun as a great soundstage is it really has little, if anything, to do with the music (performance). Just two days ago, I was speaking to a colleague and audio buddy about music and audio. He reviews equipment for a small on-line ‘zine. He had been listening to a new pair of speakers and commented on and corroborated what I have often said; an oversimplification to be sure, but that one of the best considerations when evaluating speakers is how they sound outside the listening room; or, at least, while sitting away from the sweet spot. Is the sound still tonally believable and can one still get a reasonable amount of the immediacy of live?

We do seem to have some agreement about how the two cartridges each sound; while describing it differently. You seem to like the Shure’s seemingly more extended bass. I listened to the two musical examples again. Interestingly, I don’t hear any bass information from the Shure that I don’t hear with the Decca. However, there is more bass volume with the Shure. It is fuller, more “powerful” (volume wise) sounding with the Shure, but not more extended. So, at least with these two musical examples, I don’t hear this supposedly superior bass extension. I say “supposedly” because, to me, the leaner and more linear response in the bass range of the Decca sounds more natural, more rhythmically lithe; closer to real. The extra oomph and thickness in the upper bass/lower mids of the Shure crowds the midrange for what I hear as less clarity, not more. Clearly we are listening for different things in a recording.

I am not surprised in the least that you were not impressed with the sound at the live concert that you posted and I am not sure what, if anything, this particular example proves. I don’t think that any advocate of the superiority of live sound would argue that every example of live is going to be a good one. An outdoor space like that with an orchestra on a portable stage is not going to sound stage well at all; not by audiophile standards, any way. In a food hall it is a different matter altogether as I am sure you know.  However, the sound of a live performance in any venue no matter how inferior it is acoustically will still exhibit certain sonic characteristics that elude even the very best audio systems. In live music there is an immediacy and vibrancy to the musical intent of the performers that is diminished (or distorted) by each step of the record-playback process. Even in an inferior acoustic there can be a brutally honest depiction of timbre without hype. For me that is where the magic is; everything else, while fun, is secondary and often just sonic fluff. What I am talking about is akin to the feeling one gets when walking down the street and out of an open window the sound of someone playing trumpet, violin, or a jazz trio is heard. Very low-fi with no sound staging at all; but one immediately knows that the sound is live. Why is that? Timbre and rhythm. The magic. Is it possible that while searching for the elusive sound stage and changing your seat five times that you may have missed the magic of the performance? How did the orchestra play? Even in, sometimes especially in, a brutally honest outdoor acoustic the differences in timbre between, for instance, violins and violas is heard with a level of realism that even the best audio systems (usually played at too high a volume) can’t match.

Anyway, just some further thoughts and thanks again for the posts.

Thanks Frogman.....
The reason I showed and commented on the live orchestra in Ravello is that they were all REAL unamplified instruments in 'real' space yet to me.....it didn't matter 😴
It left me cold 🥶 and unmoved 🙉....and I really didn't want to stay till the end. And I DIDN'T......🏃🏻‍♂️
My point is, that despite this being 'The Absolute Sound' by HP's definition......it wasn't 'The Holy Grail' and if my system sounded anything like this, the Classifieds on A'Gon would be full of my components 🤣
And no..........it really wasn't easily recognisable as 'live' instruments to me 👎 and I've had previous similar experiences.
I understand completely how important the 'live' experience is to you....but to me, I want 'theatre' ⚡️💥🎉
I want to be immersed, astounded, moved and left shaking my head in disbelief at what I am hearing in my own room.....
That's what keeps me turning it on almost every day (as I have for 40 years).
But I suspect that most in this enigmatic hobby of ours....have slightly different personal priorities.
And that's also why I simply 'hang' on your descriptions of my cartridges.....most of the time I don't know what you're talking about until I go back and listen to what you have pointed out...🤔
Vive les differences....🙃

Regards and thanks again.
This should be an interesting comparison....🤗
Five years ago, at the start of the mono-cartridge ’fad’.......I bought the AUDIO-TECHNICA AT-33 MONO LOMC Cartridge to see if there was an improvement over using my stereo cartridges with my Phonostage MONO switch engaged.
The AT-33 MONO has a 0.65 ml conical stylus on a Duralumin pipe cantilever with a reasonably high static compliance of 20×10-6cm/dyne and a low dynamic compliance of 6×10-6cm/dyne (100Hz).
It has a reasonably healthy output for a LOMC of 0.35mV (1kHz and 5cm/sec. horizontal signal).

AUDIO-TECHNICA AT-33 MONO LOMC Cartridge

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI Cartridge (Mono Switch)
Nice sound Henry. I love Mono and know these two carts very well.
did you book a coaching day at Hollywood Studios to become a director? 😂
best E.