Who needs a Diamond Cantilever...? 💍

Very funny stuff. As someone for whom English is a second language, or third if I were to use Uberwaltz’ criteria, I would like to point out how this is yet another example of the irony in the currently pervasive ubersensitivity to political correctness matters. What I mean is that in all the time (years!) that Nandric’s “old members (have been) teasing each other” I don’t recall a single objection from the M “victim” to the supposed racist tease. I’m late to the party here, but in the hope that the thread can get back on track I would like to add a couple of thoughts to the muy intereresante....oops... very interesting comments already made.

First, I agree entirely with Dover’s excellent observations re the differences between the sound of the two Sony cartridges. I might describe the differences heard somewhat differently, but I think that we are hearing the same things. For instance, his observation of the superior “timing” of the 88D, I would describe as the standard 88 having comparatively wooly bass with a sense of uncontrolled overhang. This causes it to have inferior pitch definition and clarity of bass notes compared to the 88D. Good pitch definition and clarity are key aspects of good musical timing. A rather wordy description of what Dover later described succinctly as more “articulate”. In all, I agree with his observations re the 88D’s superior clarity and, most important for me, superior “harmonic completeness”; the timbre of instruments, saxophone and trumpet in particular, sound closer to real.

Apologies if I have missed commentary on this point, but I think that in the quest for determining what the absolute “best” cantilever material is, not enough has been made of the fact that the cantilever material that is best for one cartridge may not be the best choice for another cartridge that uses a different motor and a different housing; all which contribute to the overall sonic signature of the cartridge as determined by the designer’s goals. Different motors offer different levels of resolution and have certain general tonal signatures just as different cartridge housings have different sonic signatures due to their particular resonance characteristics. I am certainly no expert on phono cartridges and my experience with them is certainly very limited compared to the OP’s and many here, but looking at the Sony I see a cartridge with a rather large and boxy housing constructed largely of plastic. Just an observation not meant as a criticism; clearly it is a great cartridge. To my simplistic way of thinking it would be no surprise that a cartridge with a housing that APPEARS to be less rigid and possibly more resonant than one which is more compact and rigid would benefit from a diamond cantilever with its higher degree of rigidity. The same very rigid cantilever/stylus on a cartridge with a motor and/or housing which may have inherently leaner sonic characteristics may not be the best choice for a particular cartridge designer’s goals.

Congrats on your new cartridge, Halcro; would love to hear a comparison of the 88D and the Palladian playing acoustic (orchestral?) music. Thanks for another interesting thread.

The off topic divertimento is highly amusing and could be summed up by paraphrasing Basil Fa(u)wlty in one of those hilarious episodes of Fawlty Towers: "Don’t mention the Mexican".

As for cantilevers (another highly amusing topic) I like frogman’s take on the matter. It’s the interaction with the other parts of the cartridge that determines the final result. I have had the opportunity to compare various vdHul Colibri models. As you may know they all share the same short boron cantilever, but offer a choice of body materials (aluminum, plastic or wood) and coils (copper, gold and platinum, the latter no longer available). The sonic difference between e.g. the small aluminum body with copper coils and the (larger) Blackwood body with platinum coils - remember: both with the same cantilever/stylus assembly - was overwhelming. And much larger than between the Blackwood and ANY of my cartridges with aluminum cantilever. The LW aluminum / gold version of the Colibri was excessively bright and agressive in my system, while the Blackwood / platinum gave the perfect balance of transparency and sweetness (it’s the one I kept in the end). The difference was really extreme and something I would never have anticipated within one model range. BTW: these and other Colibri versions were all compared in the same Reed P3 arm.

Ergo: don’t overestimate the importance of the cantilever material, as it is just one piece of the puzzle. As frogman suggested, the combination of a plastic body and a diamond cantilever in the 88D may well hit a perfect balance. I have an XL-44 (similar motor to XL-55 and 88 series), which is a nice enough cartridge but perhaps a bit too polite. I can imagine it could change gears having a diamond cantilever fitted. I have no doubt that the 88D is one hell of a cartridge, so Halcro enjoy it while you can.

Dover : You are rigth, mi mistake and apologizes to Moerch designer. Anyway, the example was only to show the existence of copy-cats.

The ones like Magic Diamond that took the Denon 103 cartridge motor for their cartridges do you think they are true cartridge designers?.

In the other side, I owned and still own Highphonic cartridges and at least my samples compared to the Denon DL1000A ( that I owned. ) are everything you want but " thin sound ". I still have the MCA6 with boron cantilever and owned the D15. I agree that the 1000A could stays in the " lean/thin " side but not those 2 Highphonic models. I never heard the R5 that's the one with ruby cantilever..

The Highphonic ex-Denon employees made a good contribution in their designs when gone from aluminum cantilevers to other different cantilever build materials.What did not changed between the 1000A and the Highphonics was its very low output that if I remember is 0.12mv.

Yes, that S3 FR headshells is " terrible " and only degrades the cartridge sound. I did not need it to listed the 88D to post about because for its construction it’s so obvious the " disaster ".

R.

I´ve been enjoying my Highphonic MC R5 w/ ruby cantilever for a year now. Indeed very low output 0.12 mV and very low VTF 1.0 gr and it simply makes magic in my system. I have never been an expert on MC cartridges and my experience is very limited but this little gem outperforms modern top MCs like AT-ART9 with ease. It´s in other league, surely a High-End product from the Golden Age of Analog. Our Dgob has the TOTL and extremely rare (not seen on Hifi Shark for many years) MC D15 but unfortunately he seems to be not active here. I think he was very pleased with it.

Per Frogman's last post, J Carr has delivered more than one treatise on this forum about the relationships among the parts of a cartridge.  I'm sure he knows more about the art of building a cartridge than any of us.  From his writings, I drew the conclusion that the science of the materials used is only one part of the equation, as Frogman also says.  It's how the parts work together to produce a coherent audio signal that counts the most.  Some swear by certain kinds of magnet vs certain other kinds, for example.  Coils of silver wire vs copper wire or silver/gold or silver-plated copper.  It's all been done at least once by somebody.  If there was only one good answer to the puzzle, we'd have a lot of very similar cartridges from which to choose.  As anyone knows, we are miles away from that condition.