2. analog
  3. 140043-486

Hear my Cartridges....🎶

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 😎
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.....🤗
128x128halcro
frogman
7,441 posts
 
Re 1rst vs 2nd generation YouTube videos:

No comparison. Differences were so obvious and immediate that it seems almost pointless to describe in detail. I was taken aback the contrast as I wasn’t expecting it to be so great.

2nd generation, overall much lower "fi". Loss of detail in about every respect. Loss of highs, muddy mids and lows, shrunken soundstage both side to side and front to back. As a result and most importantly, obvious decrease in musical aliveness. Wow!

Fascinating our perceived differences between the Victor and Palladian, noromance. When I read your original comment describing the Victor as "crisper"/"cleaner" and the Palladian as more "euphonic", I had the same reaction as you; like the cartridges were swapped. I hear it as just the reverse. A semantics issue perhaps? I wlll even up the ante (so to speak) by pointing out that what I described as "subtle texture in the air around instruments" was not meant to suggest that the Victor had better air as you hear; just the opposite. I heard an extraneous texture in the spaces between instruments that the Palladian did not add. Palladian sounds cleaner to me and certainly not romantic, nor the Victor cooler; as I define the terms.

All very interesting and I don’t doubt for a moment that this is what you hear. Fascinating. Vive la differance!!
noromance's avatar
noromance
9,769 posts
 
I used reasonably good over the ear headphones on my phone. It's weirding me out! I'm going to have to try on PC to my second rig downstairs later. Keep well.
halcro's avatar
halcro OP
2,664 posts
 
2nd generation, overall much lower "fi". Loss of detail in about every respect. Loss of highs, muddy mids and lows, shrunken soundstage both side to side and front to back. As a result and most importantly, obvious decrease in musical aliveness. Wow!
Yeah....massive deterioration 😱
I wanted to objectively establish a 'gauge' for the relationship between the recorded YouTube Video and the 'Live Event' (so to speak).....
I've been fairly pleased with the quality of sound on the videos compared to what I hear in situ....
Of course we all know that 'The Real Thing' must be better than a recording of it.....but there are nowhere near the losses that are evident from 1st to 2nd Generation recordings.
I don't know how to explain this as the 1st Gen recording is being played back through the same preamp, amps and speakers using the same interconnects and cables.
The only difference I can pinpoint is that the signal for the 2nd Gen is going through the Line-Level input of the preamp rather than the phono....?
But all my other sources which do the same thing (tuner, tape, CD, aux) sound wonderful...🤗
Something is causing this which might be evident to others....?

Thanks for the evaluation Frogman.....
sdrsdrsdr
196 posts
 
It took awhile but I read the whole thing. Thanks for sharing. Im not setup to listen to this properly with headphones but appreciated everyone’s comments. And I must say, excellent writing. I’ve been following your crowd for years and just recently experiencing vintage mm cartridges. An nos Stanton 881s. Have acquired a couple others (top models) but haven't tried them yet.  @halcro 
A  question  about the AT-ML180/OCC. I always thought the OFC was the earlier version and was Beryllium. And the OCC was later and boron?
halcro's avatar
halcro OP
2,664 posts
 
It took awhile but I read the whole thing.
Good grief....a marathon session 🥴
Did you only READ the whole thing @sdrsdrsdr...or also LISTEN to all the recordings?
I know you wrote that you’re not setup to listen properly....but are you able to listen AT ALL?

Regarding the AT-ML180/OCC.....the OCC stands for Ohno Continuous Casting process
In 1986 the Ohno Continuous Casting (OCC) Process was developed by professor Ohno of the Chiba Institute of Technology in Japan. The wire made by this process is claimed by our manufacturer to be 99.999 % pure and in our thinnest wire size (50 micron) that it has one crystal boundary per 6.5 km on avearge. Normal wire has a number of contaminants particularly Oxygen, Sulphur, Lead, Antimony and Aluminium and is typically 99.97% pure and has a cristal boundary perhaps every 10 mm.
This, from a knowledgeable audiophile:-
OFC is Oxygen Free Copper
OCC is Ohno Continuous Casting

Oxygen free is a good thing because it is corrosive. Just a high purity copper will do fine thanks.
Professor Ohno devised a method so there would be no or few boundaries in the copper.

In theory both of these are a good thing but the effect is really tiny and probably inaudible.
The OCC in particular is hardly relevant. Every solder joint or RCA or banana connection will have vastly larger breaks and I am skeptical that it is possible to audibly detect misalignment in the copper boundaries.
In the latter part of the ’80s.....Beryllium was declared "unsafe" to work with in some processes and cartridge cantilever manufacturing is one of these, hence....no modern cartridges utilise Beryllium.
OCC and OFC are independent of whether Beryllium or Boron is used.

On the original packaging of my AT-ML180/OCC....you can see the SEPARATE LABEL stating that it came with a "Gold-Plated Boron Cantilever".
This label obviously covers the original proclamation of BERYLLIUM CANTILEVER.....
That’s the model I will continue to seek...🧐

Regards
More to discover