Hear my Cartridges....🎶

For those who have been following......after moving the AS Palladian LOMC Cartridge to the Copperhead Tonearm on the Raven AC-2 Belt-Drive.....I tried my SONY XL-88 LOMC CARTRIDGE in the SAEC WE-8000/ST arm around my Victor TT-101.
Not expecting too much, I didn't bother removing it from its heavy FR-3 headshell 😴
And lo and behold....both the cartridge AND arm came 'alive'!!
To me....hearing it in my room....it became the 'preferred cartridge' in my collection.
A few weeks afterwards, I became aware that the rare (and expensive) DIAMOND CANTILEVERED version (the XL-88D) was for Auction on Japan Yahoo and because I was in love with the 'Standard' version...I was brave enough to bid 'high' for the XL-88D in SUCH FINE CONDITION.....

I was so 'bowled over' by the sound of this cartridge in my system, that I started a THREAD devoted to it.

SONY XL-88 LOMC CARTRIDGE

SONY XL-88D LOMC CARTRIDGE Diamond Cantilever

SONY XL-88 LOMC CARTRIDGE

SONY XL-88D LOMC CARTRIDGE Diamond Cantilever

Dover Commented:-

Hi Halcro - in my view, even on standard mac ibuds/Macair,  it's quite easy to here significant differences between the XL88 & XL88D.

In some ways the 1st comparision was more revealing - the base line on the XL88D has much better timing and resolution. The XL88 by comparison has no timing at all on the base line, its all over the place. There is more information around the base line in paricular, harmonic fulness and detail. The high frequencies on the XL88D are crisper and appear to be significantly more transparent.

On the second recording again the timing is better, more transparent through the while range, by that I mean you can hear more body, harmonic completeness and sustain and decay of notes. Piano is  much more purposeful on the XL88D ( and more real ).

As an aside, on your comparision of the Palladian and XL88 on the other thread the mid to top end of the XL88 sounded identical to the old Madrigal Carnegie on baroque music both of which I listen to a lot. The Carnegie was a Sony XLMC9 rebadged. Your comment about "vintage cartridges" is a little misnomer as Sony Soundtech designed these cartridges to be the ultimate analogue ( triple layer cantilevers of boron/carbon & aluminium, newly designed figure 8 coil layout and the Sony motor design was adopted by both Van den hul & Benz. The Early Van den hul MC1/Benz Ref/Carnegie are virtually identical.

I do note however the bass being still a little vague on the SAEC/XL88 on the baroque ( noticeable because the mid to top end is so good ) and would encourage you to find a lighter more rigid headshell - these Sony's are medium compliance and their suspensions are not robust. Again I believe the Cobra tonearm would provide the same improvements with the Sony XL's as you experienced with the Palladian over the SAEC.

I know from personal experience the Sony XL88D performed extremely well on the Dynavector tonearm I own, significantly better than on the SAEC 407/23 used on the same turntable.

Finally, congrats on the acquisition of the XL88D, one day it will be no more, but at least you have had the pleasure of hearing it for a while, a very special cartridge.

Frogman Commented:-

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.

Frogman requested a comparison of the Sony XL-88D and the AS Palladian, and Dover I believe....loves Baroque music 🤗

AS PALLADIAN LOMC CARTRIDGE

SONY XL-88D LOMC CARTRIDGE Diamond Cantilever

Halcro, you MOT, awesome service you've done by letting us get a listen of these different cartridges. I am ‘relatively’ new to the hobby (returned after tine away) and even on UTube, the difference berween these cartridges is so obvious. Thanks for this semi-scientific way that lets us all appreciate how significant a good transducer is. 

Thanks for the kind words Dramatictenor....😃
You have a ’good’ ear to appreciate the differences....
Some listeners cannot 👎
Welcome ’back’ to the hobby 🤗🎼

Lovely recording, Halcro; and thanks for obliging me with this comparison.

I must say that I am quite taken aback with the excellence of the sound of the Sony. While you have treated us to several excellent vintage cartridges, for me this is the first that I feel is in the same league as the Palladian. Outstanding! As always, my impressions have mostly to do with tonal and rhythmic characteristics. Listening was done on the usual Stax electrostatic headphones with tube driver.

The tonal characteristics of the Sony are wonderful with a midrange that is more realistically fleshed out and tonally complex than the Palladian which produces a sound that is generally too thin by comparison. Much more of the sound of the body of the harpsichord is evident with the Sony. With the Palladian the harpsichord sounds too thin and “tinkly” and the viola da gamba likewise too thin, almost threadbare, with an unrealistic nasal quality. The Palladian at first gives the impression of revealing a good sense of high frequency air for a greater sense of the room’s acoustic, but in comparison to the Sony this quality becomes an unnatural, squeaky clean, almost electronic sounding halo. With the Sony there is a greater sense of realistic timbre of the individual instruments while the Palladian seems to homogenize their individual and distinctive sounds. As a result there is a greater sense of separation of the instruments in the room’s acoustic while the Palladian seems to “crowd” them together.

The one area where I feel the Palladian MAY have the upper hand is in how it portrays subtle phrasing details. The little rhythmic pushes and pulls by the viola da gamba player at times seem to have just a little bit more energy and musical purpose with the Palladian. Along the same lines, the performance at times sounds ever so slightly slower with the Sony. All this is EXTREMELY subtle and I think it is probably a psychoacoustic effect of the Sony’s more fleshed out and richer tonal qualities. Often, a leaner tonal signature gives the illusion of greater speed. 

I loved the sound of the Sony and I think you are justified in your excitement over it. I would love to hear it playing something more complex than this music to see how it handles a full orchestra for instance. A three way shootout between the Sony, Palladian and Decca? 😃

Thanks for another great comparison.

BTW, and forgive me for nitpicking over a musicological detail. This music is technically not Baroque, but rather from or in the style of music from the Renaissance (pre Baroque).