Seeking opinions on the Luxman PD151 and EQ500 combination

Just so you know, I am not an advocate of dust covers except to keep dust off the platter when the TT is not in use. When playing LPs, my dust cover(s) are somewhere else in the room, never on the TT or over the LP. This is because I think a closed dust cover creates unpleasant colorations. Not everyone agrees. You will have to make your own decision on that, so it is good that you have a removable dust cover. The key word is "removable", not just raised up for playing LPs. As to alignment, I think the obsession with it is way overdone, but I do try to be as accurate as my tools permit and leave it at that. VTA is a matter of taste, like cartridge loading. Go with VTA that sounds OK to you and you'll be fine. For me that means I level the TT arm wand so it is parallel to the LP surface. And boom. To further my nihilist approach, I do not think you can predict the sound of a cartridge from any published spec or even from the aggregate of all the published specs, so long as the specs are not obviously awful.

OP,

Glad you got the dust cover, you were lucky to get that call and smart enough to get a few quick answers and jump on a great opportunity, one you will forever appreciate.

I see that the word ’low’ is printed on the top of the Sumiko Songbird cartridge body, (high version if it doesn’t say low) which is not visible after it is mounted (unless it shows thru the slots). Low or High, I would keep that cartridge and move it to a spare headshell to play on the new Luxman.

If you have room, perhaps keep the existing TT, put a MONO cartridge on it, ready to go. I learned here, and it is more than true, playing Mono LPs with a true Mono cartridge is a little/lot/hugely better depending on the specific Mono LP. Recording techniqes and manufacturing were excellent in the 40's and 50's, the distinction of individual instruments and voices, lack of noise, is always better and sometimes far improved on some of my Mono LPs.

Lewm,

I also am an advocate of ’do your best’, ’good enough’ ’avoid attempting perfection’, ’don’t let the over-priced thingy scare you’ and encourage people to acquire the few inexpensive tools and skills (practice until confidence is gained) to mount and align their own cartridges.

Arm parallel ’when playing’, i.e. stylus in the groove, cantilever flexed by the specified tracking weight. One of the two included allen wrenches fits a set screw that allows arm height adjustment, not as easy as a hand tightened lever, but simply trial and error until it’s "close enough for government work".

OP’s dust cover has hinges. Even though I don’t like the appearance, I would play it with the cover left up, and verify the table remained level when the cover’s weight was in that position. You, like my friend with his PD444 (also has hinges), would not use the hinges and carefully lift off and replace the dust cover which is what I must do with my JVC dust cover. Mine has cutouts designed for hand held movement, the Luxman cover does not. Of course I’ve tried to hear/prove differences, I simply cannot get the idea of reflected microphonics out of my imagination, so up or off it is: off my visual preference despite the inconvenience.

I agree you cannot predict sound qualities from specs, however wide channel separation and tight channel balance are cartridge performance measurements directly relating to good/better/best capability to create the pseudo imaging 2 channel sound involves/requires. If a company can repeatedly manufacture and achieve those parameters, that is remarkable.

I have slight preferences among my half dozen cartridges, and choose one over another for specific music, or just to hear it for a while. I have never had a cartridge with great imaging capability not be a keeper. My friends bring their cartridges here, I can play with all 3 arms in the grooves, and simply switch the SUT input to choose which signal is active, so back and forth comparisons within seconds is possible here.

I made a chart for hours played, forgot I made it. If I stop thinking ’damn that thing sounds great’, that’s when I ship a cartridge in to be checked for wear, and I’m lucky enough to live 35 minutes from Steve Leung at VAS.

"wide channel separation and tight channel balance are cartridge performance measurements directly relating to good/better/best capability". Perhaps, but the numbers quoted by manufacturers are for an average sample when brand new. There is no guarantee that any particular sample meets the stated specs or that any given sample will retain those specs over a period of use. Moreover, we are never told how the measurements were made, whether they pertain to the real world of playing an LP, or not. Could it be that your perception of a correlation between channel separation, etc, and SQ are influenced by the fact that you know the specs in advance? Or that cost often is a correlate of those measurements, with manufacturers quoting the best specs for their top of the line cartridges that therefore cost the most (and sound best too)? I guess I am a cynic. There is nothing inherently wrong about your approach.