Hear my Cartridges....šŸŽ¶


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 šŸ˜Ž
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.....šŸ¤Ŗ
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.....šŸ¤—
128x128halcro
šŸ˜ƒ
However.......
Don't forget that we all preferred the Palladian in the Copperhead on the Raven AC-2 Belt-Drive to its performance in the WE-8000/ST on the Victor Direct Drive.......
Curiouser and curiouser......šŸ¤”šŸ„“
Dear @halcroĀ  and Magicians : and I mean it in good shape. I know that all of you are really getting big fun in this cartridge party, good and please continue with.

For me is not very atractive this kind of " fest ". Anyway I wonder if this is a true cartridge " game " or something else and I have a question for all the Magicians:

how any one of you can separate the cartridge quality performance from the headshell or tonearm or TT or arm board where @halcroĀ  mounted each cartridge?Ā  I know for sure I can't do it especially for grading each cartridge quality level performance against others and if we add our each music/sounds preferences things goes more complicated for me. Btw the OP title is: " hear my cartridges ".

I know I can do it when everything is the same for each cartridge and even with is not an easy task.
Ā In the other side I never had patience for shoot-outs through headphones maybe because I'm accustom to live room/system.

I ask my self : It's a valuable excercise for the " magicians " that can't validate it?

Anyway and as I said this post is in good shape so go a head gentlemansĀ  ! ! ! fun is fun no matter what.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.




Raul, I think the group (of which I cannot count myself a member, since I have offered no SQ opinions so far) has acknowledged the effect of tonearm and headshell (and tacitly, the turntable); the Palladian was run on both the SAEC/Victor and then on the Copperhead/Raven, and the group preferred the latter.Ā  As for me, my computer speakers are lousy, so I dare not think I can judge at all.Ā  Nothing sounds really good at my end.
Abracadabra!!!

Quick catch up to you guys:

For the sake of expediency, Iā€™ll just say that neither the Shure V15/III nor Denon 103R impressed very much. If forced to choose, I would choose the Denon. I just donā€™t like the Shure ā€œsoundā€. Too dry and bleached out; too ā€œgrayā€ sounding for me. The Denon (I owned one) is a little juicier sounding. Too juicy, but I prefer to go in that direction instead of the opposite.

I generally agree with the very good comments about the Sony vs the AS, but Iā€™m not prepared to make definite conclusions. I agree there is a sense of more drive with the Sony. However, it could be due to the Victorā€™s DD. For that reason alone I donā€™t think that there is proof of superiority in that department. Probably as important, I think, is that the volume level of the Sony clip is slightly higher than that of the AS. That alone could sway oneā€™s impression of ā€œdriveā€. We are comparing two very good cartridges and perhaps Halcro can use an SPL meter going forward for setting volume levels and for more fair comparisons. What I like about the Sony is that one hears tonalities with more ā€œmeat on the boneā€ which would be a benefit in an overall leaner sounding system. On the previous doubled up clip that noromance referred to as ā€œtrickyā€, one of my impressions of the Sony was that the lower octaves were too thick. I heard it on my end as a little muddy and indistinct. This I think contributes to the ā€œmore meat on the bonesā€ impression on the Prokofiev (great recording) which, combined with the POSSIBLE greater rhythmic drive, gives the Sony more of what Halcro often refers to as more ā€œmagicā€.

On the plus side for the AS, while the Sony makes the orchestra sound like it was recorded in a rich, reverberant hall with lots of wood, the AS sounds like the orchestra is in a more modern hall. A little leaner, less grunt in the lower winds and strings. I think there is greater tonal truthfulness and refinement with the Palladian and, as noromance points out, more overall fine detail. Listen to the entrance of the English horn @ 0:26. With the Sony it sounds like the EH enters. With the AS I can hear that it is English Horn AND oboe. However, as a colleague often says: ā€œno one ever gets fired for bad soundā€. Meaning: rhythm and timing is No.1. In this example and comparison, and assuming I am wrong about the effect of the slightly lower volume with the AS, the Sony wins.

Probably the toughest comparison yet. I generally agree with your comments. I would also think that in an all SS system like Halcroā€™s I might prefer the Sony. In an all tube system, I would probably prefer the AS.Ā 

Now, where did that rabbit go? šŸ˜Š


Dear @lewmĀ  : Even tthat all here is about of fun you have to think that cartridge quality performance is " disturbed " by " thousands " of different kind of " parameters/conditions ".Ā 
In the example you posted:Ā 

one TT is BD and the other in a DD one, both arm boards different, both TT plynth different, both TT platter surface in touch with the LP surface different, both tonearms with different effective length and effective mass, both tonearms with different wiring, one tonearm with removable headshell and the other with out it, different resonance frequency in both tonearms, different tracking error too and other additional " disturbing " parameters.

When things are so different it's ovbious that exist differences in the overall performance.

Anyway, my target was and is not to go in deep about and as I said before: fun is fun and this is the thread target.

R.