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.....🤪
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¤—
halcro
I tried, I really tried. I have made my feelings about the Decca known many times previously and I wanted to be sure that no bias crept into my assessment this time around.

In previous comparisons I always felt that the Decca was a superior cartridge to the Palladian in the areas that are priorities for me: tonal truthfulness (naturalness) and linearity. In those areas and compared to the Palladian the Decca wins handily once again. Ā Sound staging excellence takes a back seat for me no matter how impressive or fun it may be with another cartridge. Glad to know the Dover agrees with my ranking of the two.

Sony/Decca:
Awesome recording. Beautiful music. Much of the music was lifted and used in the Broadway musical ā€œKismetā€. The melody heard here in the beginning was used as the melody for the song ā€œStranger In Paradiseā€ from that musical.

Many of the sound staging characteristics that I heard in previous comparisons with the Decca are evident here. The Decca presents a more compact soundstage and a mid/rear of the hall perspective. Very well organized soundstage, but one feels as if sitting about half way toward the back of the hall. The Sony gives a more upfront perspective with larger individual images and a great sense of front to back with images. This is the first time that this quality has been so clear in one of these comparisons. The clarinet clearly and correctly sounds that it is sitting further back than the flute and piccolo. A very impressive sound stage. Likewise, one can hear that the French Horn is sitting further back still and there is a hint of the sound bouncing off the back wall. Great stuff. The Sony is amazing that way and I can only imagine what it sounds like in Halcro’s room.

There are a couple of areas where the Decca still wins for me, however. Again, these areas may not be priorities for some and we are comparing two fantastic cartridges. I would be hard pressed to call one cartridge superior to the other and certainly would not say that the Sony ā€œblows the Decca out of the waterā€. Again, this according to my priorities.

Within the Decca’s smaller and less impressive sound stage there is slightly better linearity and with certain instruments just a slightly better sense of tonal truthfulness. All very subtle and, again, may not matter as much to some listeners and may not be evident with some music. Overall, the Sony sounds more fleshed out; perhaps a bit too much so at times. It does give a great sense of the inner texture of instrumental timbres. As does the Decca, but which does it in a more compact way due to the smaller individual images. For me, with the Sony there is a slight thickness in the lower mids/upper bass that is not present with the Decca. Listen to the sound of the bass drum. More powerful with the Sony, but one hears the sound of mallet hitting skin and the way that the drum was tuned a little more clearly with the Decca’s. For me the overall sound with the Sony is just a little corpulent at times compared to the sound with the Decca which is a bit leaner. Personally, I would feel the urge to turn down the volume on the subs one notch; or perhaps lower the xover point just a couple of hertz. Not so with the Decca. I love the sound of the triangle with the Decca. Leaner than with the Sony, but with a beautiful shimmer and long decay.

I agree with Dover that the Sony gives a great sense of the grandeur of the music and with his other comments in general. It is very impressive in that regard. Two fantastic cartridges and I would be hard pressed to choose one over the other.

Thanks, Halcro for another interesting comparison and tell Princi ā€œnice haircutā€.

https://youtu.be/HEOEZ-HOWkU
Thanks, Halcro for another interesting comparison and tell Princi ā€œnice haircutā€.
🐶
Glad you and Dover liked the recording Frogman...Decca 😃
You are a 'true-blue' (Australian idiom) Decca (cartridge) 'Fan-Boy'....šŸ‘
Not that there's anything wrong with that....
Whilst appreciating all your points (and I think we've agreed on this previously).....I am reasonably confident that were you here, in my room.....you would have to agree on the superiority of the XL-88D šŸ™ƒ
The sheer size, height and depth of the image created.
The pinpoint imaging.
The transparency.
The shimmering highs and realistic lows.
They all combine to create an approximation of 'The Real Thing' more convincing than I've heard since the Avant-Garde Trios with triple-stacked BassHorns at Munich 2017......and THEY did it without the Sony!!!

Be that as it may....it's obvious that the quality of 'recording' is more important than EVERYTHING else when it comes to analogue.....
You'll notice that in the 140 odd videos I've made for this Thread.....I've used only 'Good' to 'Great' recordings IMO...and haven't repeated any šŸ¤—
Mostly I've eschewed the 'recognised' 'approved' audiophile pressings from Mercury and RCA because I don't agree with their purported 'excellence' 🤄
Deccas are generally more to my liking but there are many other small, independent and often unheard of labels/recording studios which offer rewarding recordings.

Richard Strauss is one of my favourite composers and IMO....one of the most underrated 😢....and I've had several recordings released by World Record Club in Australia sourced from HMV and EMI but apparently pressed in Australia from the original first stamper. 
Listed on the back:-
RecordingĀ : Lukaskirche, Dresden
ProducerĀ : David Mottley
EngineerĀ : Klaus Struben
Recorded in co-production with the former VEB Deutsche Schallplatten, Berlin
I bought these in my teens and used to play them on my father's turntable with mono ceramic cartridge 😱
Luckily I didn't ruin them...
Until I played them recently on my current System.....I had never appreciated the quality of their recording/mastering/mixing.

I'll be interested to see if you agree?

RICHARD STRAUSSĀ 
Still following with interest. I'm trying to find time to listen on my digital rig. Will try for tonight. @halcroĀ I have not forgot the headshell issue šŸ˜‰
I would love to hear your system, Halcro; and have no doubt that it sounds fantastic. Ā If I am ever in your neck of the woods I’ll be sure to let you know.
The issue of ā€œsuperiorityā€ is a tricky one, imo. Ā For me, the respective sounds of,Ā in this case, two truly excellent components get to a point when ā€œsuperiorityā€ is determined by superiority in specific areas that are sonic priorities; even when the other component does better in areas which are not sonic priorities. Ā I wrote:

**** Sound staging excellence takes a back seat for me no matter how impressive or fun it may be with another cartridge. ****

You wrote:

**** The sheer size, height and depth of the image created.
The pinpoint imaging.
The transparency.
The shimmering highs and realistic lows.Ā ****

As you have stated, or suggested, several times previously and as the above comment seems to prioritize, sound staging is extremely important for you. Ā Less so for me. Ā I am sure that we can agree that the soundstaging with the Decca is at least very good. Ā I think we can then take those considerations off the table for the sake of this discussion. Ā Tonal considerations then become what determines for me which is ā€œsuperiorā€. Ā Based on this and previous comparisons I would say that you prefer a sound with a lower midrange/upper bass range that is a little more prominent than would be my preference. Ā Nothing wrong with that at all. Ā I feel that even a little too much prominence in that range, and especially if not well integrated and tonally consistent with the midrange obscures midrange nuance which is the most important aspect of sound for me. Ā This is the reason that I continue to suffer the bass inadequacies of my beloved Stax F81’s. Ā I have not heard a more tonally truthful midrange. Ā 
The sound with the Decca pushes some of the same buttons for me. Ā There is something simply tonally correct about its sound in the context of your system as heard this way. Ā Perhaps ā€œin situā€ it would be different, but my priorities would still be the same. Ā If you ever tire of the Decca, feel free to send it to me; I think Dover already has dibs on the Sony ā˜ŗļø. Ā What an amazing collection of cartridges you have. Ā Congrats! Ā 
I’ll give the Strauss a listen shortly. Ā One of my very favorite composers and certainly not under appreciated in my book.

Best wishes.


Since finding my 'Holy Grail' of cartridges (SONY XL-88D)....I wondered whether or not I would be able to listen to all the other cartridges I have collected and culled over the last 12 years...šŸ‘‚
As I intimated in my last Post....the MOST important link in the analogue chain, is the quality of the recording, mastering, engineering and pressing of the actual disc.
After discovering the superlative quality of the series of recordings of the Complete Works of Richard Strauss with Rudolf Kempe conducting the Dresden State Orchestra in 1973 released by EMI and HMV in 1974....I bought every record I could find on Discogs for pittances.
I'm done with purchasing new re-releases offered for $30-60 with warps, surface noice, clicks and pops and inferior sound to the original releases 😔
Whatever you can hear on this video, is nothing compared to the quality filling my room.
Dynamic performances of massed orchestras in full flight are the hardest to both record and playback with the realism of the 'live' event.
That's why you rarely hear any exhibitor at a HiFi Show attempt it...
These recordings (by VEB Deutsche Schallplatten Berlin DDR) come closer than almost any I have heard.

Although the music of Richard Strauss is not to everyone's taste....if you couldn't be happy with the sound from these recordings played with a vintage MM Cartridge....I thinkĀ you may be too fussy šŸ¤—

RICHARD STRAUSSĀ