$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path



I am putting together an analog system, starting with the cartridge. I like a well-balanced sound with a slightly lush midrange and excellent extension at the frequency extremes. The cartridge should be a reasonably good tracker. Here are my choices:

1. Dynavector Karat 17D MkII
2. Shelter 501
3. Sumiko Black Bird
4. Grado Statement Master
5. Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood

Which one comes closest to my wish list? Which one would you choose?

Here are the upgrade cartridges to the above list, one of which would be purchased later:

1. Shelter 901
2. Benz Micro L2
3. Grado Statement Reference
4. Koetsu Black

Which one comes closest to my wish list? Which one would you choose?

Now, which turntable/tonearm combination (for new equipment up to $4,500) would you choose to handle a cartridge from the first group and the upgrade cartridge from the second group?

Any help you can provide is greatly welcomed. Thanks!
artar1
Atar1,

My recommendation of the Aesthetix Rhea comes from my grounding in the Aesthetix Io Signature phono stage. The Io Signature simply is one of those components that can change your whole outlook on what is possible with vinyl replay and what supremely natural music reproduction sounds like. The Rhea gives one a very good sized slice of what the Io offers. Unfortunately, even the Rhea is expensive. But, if one's budget gets close, it's well worth a very hard look at whether one can possibly make that extra financial stretch. Purchase of any of the Aesthetix gear is a "never regret it" acquisition.

Regards,

Psychicanimal,

The music is in the original performance, 100%, which emanates from the minds and hearts of the musicians and conductor, if one is present, as the musicians play their instruments to create sound. The performance is but a fleeting moment in time captured on an analog master tape and then later transferred to the vinyl disc. The disc becomes the sonic equivalent of Michelangelo’s marble from which art (in this case, music) arises once liberated by an audio system, of which the turntable, tonearm, and cartridge, acting together, are the sculptor’s chisel. Without the vinyl record, there is no music regardless of the quality and eloquence of the analog front end; and without the turntable, tonearm, and cartridge, the vinyl record remains a black and lifeless disc of petroleum by-products; it has the potential for conveying music, but nothing more. Obviously, all four elements are needed if music is to result, along with the preamp, amp, speakers, and cabling.

So now the argument seems to be which element is the most important. That’s like asking what is more crucial, the brain or the heart? Without either, life, as we know it, is impossible. Sure, heart transplants permit a continued existence, albeit a very short one with many limitations and much suffering. Currently, a mechanical coronary pump is no substitute for a living, healthy, and viable heart despite what we might have read. This medical analogy, however, has only limited utility when it comes to assessing the importance that each element plays in an analog front end. Those who argue that a poorly functioning turntable, or one that functions well enough but fails to provide the proper platter rotational speed, low wow and flutter, excellent protection against spurious vibration and rumble, and a proper balance of materials to assist in the best sonic performance possible, are correct. However, those who argue that the cartridge is the most important element, provided a competent turntable/tonearm are present, are not wrong either, at least not entirely. So how is it possible for both positions to be correct? Are we not looking at a paradox?

If one were to argue the validity of a single point of reference (i.e., the cartridge is the most important element) to the exclusion of all else, such an argument would quickly lead to a position favoring reductionism and absolutism in a situation that clearly suggests that the balancing of all the three elements (turntable, tonearm, and cartridge) is required to create a harmonious whole where the total is more than the sum of the parts. (This supposition would also be equally true if the turntable had been argued as being the only important factor that mattered.) Stated another way, the turntable, tonearm, and cartridge issue is like solving three linear equations with different unknowns (x, y, and z). To leave one equation unsolved would mean to obtain an incorrect outcome, or at best, a partial, but incomplete answer. All three elements (turntable, tonearm, and cartridge) need to be considered simultaneously, with an equal probability given that anyone element could be scrutinized momentarily to the exclusion of the other two. If this process were allowed to continue long enough, one would have the benefit of seeing the entire picture, as well as enjoying the view from all relevant perspectives.

This approach may be fine in theory, but what if another variable is introduced – cost? In a perfect world and with unlimited time, money, and energy, one could spend all the resources necessary to solve the “three equations” to come up with a superior turntable/tonearm/cartridge combination. But most audiophiles are limited by the exorbitant prices of SOTA products, making it very challenging, indeed, to find the most eloquent solution with limited funds. Most of us have to compromise, including myself. So which of the three elements gets shortchange with our initial purchase?

Several of us have already tried, or experienced, the expensive cartridge/modest turntable and tonearm combination, and found it lacking to some degree. Better results were obtained by pouring more resources into the turntable first and less into the tonearm and cartridge, in that order. The logic is simple: it’s easier, when finances permit later, to upgrade the tonearm and cartridge with a great foundation in place, that foundation being the turntable. Over time the tonearm would be updated next, followed by the cartridge.

Pursuing a course in which the cartridge comes first would mean that the modest turntable and tonearm would never fully reveal what the high-performing, high-cost cartridge had to offer. (It’s like buying an expensive FM tuner in a region that plays country music and talk radio on the AM dial, and the nearest classical/jazz FM stations are too far away for really good reception.) Moreover, this situation would not improve dramatically if only one element were upgraded at a time. If the turntable were purchased next, it may not have the correct arm mount for our modest tonearm. Or if the tonearm were to come next, the turntable may not be able to support it properly, and so on. Additionally, as long as the analog front end is being used, the expensive cartridge is slowly wearing out, meaning it, too, will need to be replaced eventually. This replacement expenditure may also put a limit on one’s upgrade aspirations. However, if a reasonably good sounding cartridge of modest cost were selected first, one can sink the bulk of one’s audio dollars in the turntable with the intension of upgrading the arm next and finally the cartridge. Thus, cartridge wear in this situation would be of less concern because the cartridge would be replaced eventually and would, therefore, have less impact upon one’s future upgrade plans.

In formulating my analog front-end plans, I followed the process outlined above to a large degree, and I modified my plans accordingly as a result of all the posts that have been made here. While my initial post asked for advice about cartridge selection, I also, indirectly, asked about turntable and tonearm compatibility. At that point I had momentarily elevated the importance of the cartridge, but not to the permanent exclusion of the other two elements, those being the turntable and tonearm. Throughout this process I have engaged in a juggling act, so to speak, keeping all three elements in motion until I found a solution for each one, a solution that would not only serve the whole, but each part thereof.

Viggen,

If I am a fan of Edmund Husserl, it is without my conscious knowledge and it is quite by chance within the limitations of my “eighth-grade” education, now strained to the maximum!

With a quick Internet query, Husserl seems to be very partial to phenomenology, and is even credited with creating it. While I am an avid supporter of objectivism and positivism, there are, I must admit, states of being and objects in our environment that defy reductionism, experimentation, measurement, and quantification in purely analytical terms. For example, the feeling of love might be measured via a galvanic-skin response, but the depth and nature of that love is largely unmeasurable as being distinct from any other human emotion, such as fear. Both can be detected by sensitive instruments, but the “machine” can only tell us that an emotion has been expressed physiologically, not which feeling. In phenomenology, inner experience is not only accepted, it is encouraged along with a precise vocabulary to describe events, observations, feelings, and sensations. I submit that much of subjective audio reviewing is phenomenological in nature and not scientific, although there are some who might claim otherwise!

If anyone is interested in knowing more about Husserl, here is a brief synopsis I found while cruising the Internet:

>>Husserl is the father of phenomenology. Born in the former Czechloslovakia, Husserl studied in Leipzig, Berlin and Vienna, where he also taught. He began his studies as a mathemetician, but his studies were influenced by Brentano, who moved him to study more psychology and philosophy. He wrote his first book in 1891, The Philosophy of Arithmetic. This book dealt mostly with mathematical issues, but his interests soon shifted. Husserl immersed himself in the study of logic from 1890-1900, and he soonafter produced another text: Logical Investigations(1901).

Some of his major ideas of this era were intentionality, relations, and identity of things. He came to focus on perceptual experience, and as he began to shed his early Kantian ways, he wrote Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy(1913). His last three books were Formal and Transcendental Logic(1929), Cartesian Meditations(1931), and Lectures on the Phenomenology of Inner Time-Consciousness(1928), a group of lectures he compiled and edited. His lectures and essays comprise a large amount of his works.

Husserl attempted to shift the focus of philosophy away from large scale theorization, towards a more precise study of discrete phenomena, ideas and simple events. He was interested in the essential structure of things, using eidetic analysis of intensionality to yield apodictic(necessary) truths.

Husserl aided philosophy, breaking the Cartesian trap of dualism with new ideas like intensionality. He was perhaps the most important force in revitalizing 20th century continental philosophy.<<
Dan_ed,

Thanks again for your endorsement of the Rhea. I am sure you are very happy with that phono stage.

As you may know by now, I must wait until next April before I can spend any more money on audio equipment. (I must get through Tax Season before I blow the big wad!) So I can’t take advantage of the current used Rheas on Audiogon. Even if I could, we are looking at a good $700 or more over my budget. (Ouch!)

Without a doubt, the Rhea was a big improvement for your system. I know what you mean by adding more highs, lows, and dynamics. The Klyne did that for me in regards to my Conrad-Johnson PV14L ($2,500) and Proceed AVP ($5,000). And like the Rhea, the Klyne is so quiet that when I place my ear against the loudspeaker, I hear nothing, no hum and no hiss. I can’t say that for either my CJ or Proceed units.

>>Some might find the sound a tad bright, but that will vary from person to person.<<

Hmmm. I have heard the opposite reported by the audio press. It surprises me there would be any brightness at all. Could it be the cartridge? Maybe a different loading is in order? I am only guessing.

>>BTW, that 10x thing is a rule of thumb, not a law of physics if you catch my meaning.<<

I understand what you are saying.

>>The numbers for your system are close enough that only a listen in your system would allow you to know for sure.<<

Unfortunately, that may not be possible.

>>I haven't gotten to rolling in better tubes, which would probably help with the somewhat bright presentation.<<

What tubes did you have in mind? If the Rhea is at all bright, it won’t work very well with my Martin Logans.

>>My previous phono stage was a fully modified EAR 834P, a very solid performer for the money and perhaps you could investigate that unit as a candidate.<<

I now see where you might feel the Rhea is a tad bright. The EAR 843P is more than a tad dark.

Rushton,

>>My recommendation of the Aesthetix Rhea comes from my grounding in the Aesthetix Io Signature phono stage.<<

No more needs to be said. That unit is truly state of the art.

I will see what I can do in regards to buying the Rhea, but I can’t make any promises.