2. analog
  3. 151891-2199

Testing the Yamamoto HS-4 Carbon Fiber headshell.

Received the Yamamoto HS-4 Carbon Fiber headshell today and tried it on my 12" Jelco 850L. I guess this is a common upgrade path for many Jelco users so I succumbed to temptation.
Turntable is a modified Garrard 401 in a slate plinth on a maple and concrete support with new third party bearing, platter and idler.
I tested it with my Decca "Garrott Brothers Microscanner" Gold with new line contact stylus and Decapod.
Three records were played. Ketty Lester - Love Letters (1962), Cole/Davinport/Tate/Dickenson - French Festival Nice France 1974, Buddy Tate - The Great Buddy Tate (1981).
I played sample tracks from the records before swapping the standard magnesium Jelco headshell out. From the first needle drop using the Yamamoto, there was a soft grey veiling. Not a great start. There was definitely greater depth and improved bass - I could hear the kick drum pedal hitting the skin in a very specific location and acoustic bass was well delineated and easier to follow. Soundstage was more of a wall of sound with greater height. I remember the same effect using grey plate Sylvania Gold 5751s once which are acclaimed but not to my taste. Female vocals didn’t have the articulation and airy projection I normally experienced and it was that which forced me to stop going any further and I duly put the original shell back. The greyness was gone, replaced by a transparent black background and what I can only call a vast increase in precision and focus. I deliberately didn’t mention the mids and highs with the HS-4 simply because they were compromised and wholly unsatisfactory. With the Jelco, the tremendous detail returned: The color and metallic shimmer of cymbals, the beauty of vocal inflection, instruments speed and clarity. Piano hammers sounded fast and believable. But most importantly, dynamic range now soared with startling realism. That bass drum is not as clearly evident and it is the one area I’ll give to the Yamamoto. Make no mistake though, this carbon fiber headshell was an enormous fail for me. I can only assume the material imparted its soft plasticky sonic signature onto the music. Not recommended.

128x128noromance
noromance's avatar
noromance OP
9,859 posts
 
@nandric Not sure what cultural and musical preferences have to do with sound perception especially in relation to others on this thread.
Truth and value statements may seem at odds with each other but what is the truth here? Is the headshell truly better than I hear it? The only way to ascertain an agreed-upon outcome is to have a listening session and discussion. We could speculate and theorize indefinitely. 

nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 
@noromance , I can only react on what you write not on what you
think. You quoted this Roman phrase ''de gustibus non est disputandum'' 
but added ''not really''. What does ''not really''
mean. Not true? I asked about ''nature -nurture'' question but
you avoided the issue. To me your fixation is on ''nature'' with
scientific inclination. But music is ''social thing'' inscrutable
otherwise. I mentioned Chines opera in this context. Then we
all (?) know that, say, Japanese prefer other geir than we in the
West do. Japanese them self make other cartridges for their own
market than for the ''West market''. Those differences can't be
explained with ''nature'' but only with ''nurture''.
BTW ''better than...'' imply comparisons or ''relational sentences''
which imply valuation statements which are involved in this
Roman phrase. 

noromance's avatar
noromance OP
9,859 posts
 
’Not really’ means that taste and cultural preferences are not relevant to the actual sound quality. I am rejecting that as a factor in the equation. My hypothesis is thus: Unless there are physiological and/or psycho-acoustic reasons, the quality of reproduced sound should be consistent for all users. If it is not, other physical factors are at play in the reproduction chain.
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 
''Not really'' means.. ''What do you mean'' ?  ''This make no sense'',
etc. are obviously about ''meaning''. Not about ''truth or falsity''.
We need to first understand statement made to be able to react.
There was in the past so called ''theory of meaning'' next to
''theory of reference'' or ''referential theory'' which won the contest.
Aka  ''ýour physical theory of truth'' . But Frege's work ''About
Sense and Reference'' included obviously both and is still the
most important  work in phylosophy of language. We agreed on
the fact (?) that ''value statements'' are not ''thruth functionall'' .
Aka the question of ''truth and falsity'' don't apply to them.
This is also implicit in the quoted Roman saying. However logic
apply to all kinds of sentences because contradictory sentences,
say, ''make no sense'' in the sense of consistency. We can't grasp
what is ''really meant'' by contradictory statements. That is why
people ask ''what do you (really) mean''. With your 
''physical approach'' you can't answer such questions. There are different and contradictory statement made about the same 
physical  object ; the headshell in casu. Well the question 
than is how  the same object can ''have'' and ''not have'' the 
same proporties?
BTW this is the usual outcome in our discussions so it is not
clear why you participate in them? 

,



noromance's avatar
noromance OP
9,859 posts
 
Well the question than is how the same object can ''have'' and ''not have'' the same proporties?
Schrödinger's headshell?

 
More to discover