Good to see you back in action, Halcro. Hope that you and all here are well.
I agree wholeheartedly with Doverâs comments. I would describe what I hear somewhat differently, but the gist of it all is the same.
First and in full disclosure, as you may remember I have never been a great fan of AT/Signet cartridges. For years, I have tried to get truly satisfactory sound from, among other AT MMâs, my sample of the vaunted ATML170OCC and I have always been left dissatisfied. I bring this up because what I always hear from the ATML170 is precisely what I hear from the Signet on the Ellington (a recording I know well).
âColoredâ means different things to different folks. I believe I understand what Dover means when he describes the Signet as âcoloredâ. I would actually describe the sound as lacking in color...the richness and variety of natural tonal color that the sound of acoustic instruments have. I hear that colorless sound as having a pervasive âgrayâ cast that homogenizes the distinctive sound of instruments. âColoredâ in gray. Timbral blandness. Btw, I hear a similar quality from most Shure cartridges that I have tried.
On the plus side. in spite of this tonal blandness, there is a welcome fullness in the midrange. I say welcome because the Sony sounds a little lean through the midrange and upper mids; and when the whole orchestra is playing, bordering on slight harshness (but not quite). With the Sony the clarinetâs naturally plush mid register sounds too lean, while with the Signet sounds more correct in this respect. However, I suspect that, just as with the sound of the flute heard here, the upper register of the clarinet would sound lacking in harmonics. The flute sounds too covered with the Signet; little sense of the sound of metal (silver). The Signet sounds lacking in air and the upper partials of the timbre of individual instruments. In general, the distinctive tones of the winds is much easier to recognize with the Sony; in spite of the perceived high frequency leanness. While there is seldom a way to confirm this, the Sony gives me a very strong sense that what I am hearing is what is actually on the recording and not the inherent sound of the cartridge. This may very well account for the âbrittlenessâ that Dover hears, and what I hear as leanness through the upper mids. I believe this is a result of the mics and other recording equipment used. I hear this same quality playing this recording on my own system.
Even more so than the tonal issues the most important difference for me is with, and what Dover points out, the âtimingâ. To me, with the Signet just as with my ATML170 there is a perception that the performance is actually a little bit slower than with the Sony. There is a noticeable decrease in the wonderful propulsive and forward moving feeling of the rhythm sectionâs playing that one hears clearly with the Sony. With the Signet the music simply doesnât move the same way; sounds almost static by comparison.
Btw, this example gave the best sense of âstereoâ of any of your prior examples, Halcro. Much more clear left to right panning of instruments, whereas prior examples tended to mostly sound almost as in mono.
I wonât comment on the Bela Fleck track because I find too much of a volume inbalance between the two examples to make a fair judgment.
I suspect that in my all tube system, mounted on my ET2, the Sony would a no brainer.
Thanks, as always, Halcro and best to all.
I agree wholeheartedly with Doverâs comments. I would describe what I hear somewhat differently, but the gist of it all is the same.
First and in full disclosure, as you may remember I have never been a great fan of AT/Signet cartridges. For years, I have tried to get truly satisfactory sound from, among other AT MMâs, my sample of the vaunted ATML170OCC and I have always been left dissatisfied. I bring this up because what I always hear from the ATML170 is precisely what I hear from the Signet on the Ellington (a recording I know well).
âColoredâ means different things to different folks. I believe I understand what Dover means when he describes the Signet as âcoloredâ. I would actually describe the sound as lacking in color...the richness and variety of natural tonal color that the sound of acoustic instruments have. I hear that colorless sound as having a pervasive âgrayâ cast that homogenizes the distinctive sound of instruments. âColoredâ in gray. Timbral blandness. Btw, I hear a similar quality from most Shure cartridges that I have tried.
On the plus side. in spite of this tonal blandness, there is a welcome fullness in the midrange. I say welcome because the Sony sounds a little lean through the midrange and upper mids; and when the whole orchestra is playing, bordering on slight harshness (but not quite). With the Sony the clarinetâs naturally plush mid register sounds too lean, while with the Signet sounds more correct in this respect. However, I suspect that, just as with the sound of the flute heard here, the upper register of the clarinet would sound lacking in harmonics. The flute sounds too covered with the Signet; little sense of the sound of metal (silver). The Signet sounds lacking in air and the upper partials of the timbre of individual instruments. In general, the distinctive tones of the winds is much easier to recognize with the Sony; in spite of the perceived high frequency leanness. While there is seldom a way to confirm this, the Sony gives me a very strong sense that what I am hearing is what is actually on the recording and not the inherent sound of the cartridge. This may very well account for the âbrittlenessâ that Dover hears, and what I hear as leanness through the upper mids. I believe this is a result of the mics and other recording equipment used. I hear this same quality playing this recording on my own system.
Even more so than the tonal issues the most important difference for me is with, and what Dover points out, the âtimingâ. To me, with the Signet just as with my ATML170 there is a perception that the performance is actually a little bit slower than with the Sony. There is a noticeable decrease in the wonderful propulsive and forward moving feeling of the rhythm sectionâs playing that one hears clearly with the Sony. With the Signet the music simply doesnât move the same way; sounds almost static by comparison.
Btw, this example gave the best sense of âstereoâ of any of your prior examples, Halcro. Much more clear left to right panning of instruments, whereas prior examples tended to mostly sound almost as in mono.
I wonât comment on the Bela Fleck track because I find too much of a volume inbalance between the two examples to make a fair judgment.
I suspect that in my all tube system, mounted on my ET2, the Sony would a no brainer.
Thanks, as always, Halcro and best to all.