Tranfiguration Orpheus description

Jcarr, you're quite right re: the wire diameter used to wind the coil -- after all, the number of windings is directly proportional to the current produced when a coil is moved through a magnetic field. I only was using the impedance spec as a rough indicator of how much wire was actually in the coil (it's weight.) My assumption being that a cartridge maker would employ the thinnest wire he could possibly work with, in order to get the maximum number of turns with the minimum weight.

As for your comment about marketing speak, well say what you like, but the ring magnet concept eliminates several sound-degrading electomagnetic irregularities (as detailed in the above descriptions) that do not attend the ring design which has obvious advantages, both mechanically and electromagnetically. I think the advantages are a reality one can't reasonably avoid.

My contention/speculation or whatever you wish to call it, is that unlike the Colibris, UNIs, Allaerts, etc, the ring concept has a lot of room for refinement, and yet it's already neck and neck performance-wise with the (maxxed out, IMO) conventional designs.

As I stated somewhere earlier in this thread (and as Speedy just commented) I'm not about to put my W up for sale. First I want to sift (for authenticity) through the rave reviews we'll no doubt be hearing from some of our beloved early adopters. Then I'll decide if the Orpheus represents enough of an improvement, or if I should wait for the further development that will undoubtedly take place.

One thing is certain, I won't have egg on my face, or yokes on my tonearm ;--)
.

Ultra tight magnet-coil coupling. The coils are not just close but literally right inside, with coil-magnet proximity of only a few thousandths of an inch.

It may be 'marketing speak' but it certainly is sexy, and I, for one, am intriqued. ;-)

My question is this: with such fine tolerances, what does that mean for the suspension and its lifespan?

Cheers,
Tim

Whew,Nsgarsh!Now you are looking much more credible,in your way of approaching whether you,yourself,would spend this kind of dough.Me too!!And I can easily see doing it,in lieu of the admitted fact that I have been down for six months,and want to make some major,"meaningful" moves.Soon.Yet and yet?
Jcarr,has some very valid input,that has to be given consideration,as well!
I mean,if we simply took the technical approach,we would all have sold our analog rigs around 1982,and gone the "Digi" route.No?
Actually in '82,the Princeton Record Exchange had SO vast an analog "stock",of everything viable,that with some inner voice speaking to me,and with the marketing speak,for CD in full gear,I went NUTZZZ collecting the "Primo" lp's we all lust for today!I simply was not "automatically" jumping on the digital bandwagon,at that time,though five years ago I got a fine player,simply because I like alot of the new avante garde stuff,like John Zorn/Pendrecki/Rousse/Terry Riley yada yada.
But...the stuff found on some old lp's will never be recorded again.There is some amazing stuff to still be found.
I love to still look for offbeat stuff,and my friend Sid is "stacked" with Lp's to "really" die for.
BTW,you simply know the "O" is going to garnish raves,from the press!Doesn't everything?
I mean,when I look at some of the reviewers in Hi Fi News and Record Review,many are,already,showing the "O" in their own systems.But I'll bet they did not dig too deep for them.I can just see their own input,when it comes to print.No surprises,I'll bet.So I will still be just a little suspicious.Just a little.But....YES SIR....you bet that it is totally possible that this "tweener" design could have very likely come about to specifically fit a product line category.Business works that way,alot!Do you think Koetsu accidentally discovered some zillion year old coral,while an employee was scuba diving,and inadvertantly put it on a cartridge out of curiosity.Then decided to ask fifteen thousand dollars for one?"IT LOOKS DAMN GREAT",and the "marketing machine" knew it would sell,to the Rolex/Breitling crowd.Afterall there are not alot of bad sounding Koetsus out there.I should know.I had four models over ten years.
Sorry for my lengthly rant,BTW.I won't argue my case anymore either,and will just wait for my friend to come up with it,which is inevitable.Very soon!I HOPE you can say "I told you so",after I audition it,but you had better be prepared to loan me some cash,or maybe feed my family for awhile -:)

Best!

Speedy, I could go along with the O being a tweener marketing ploy if they were asking like DOUBLE the price of a V or W (remember the huge jump in price from an Airy 3 to a UNIverse?) but at a mere 20% more, no I think it's simply going to turn out to be 20% better -- which IMO (based on the already amazing performance of my W) will automatically put it out in front of the competition.

The only cartridge I'd currently cross a state line to hear is the Magic Diamond Blue, and the only person I know that uses one is Rushton. I don't know where he lives and his wife won't let him say ;--)

The diameter of the wire is also a component in deciding the sound, so rather than using the thinnest possible wire, a cartridge maker is likely to use whatever wire diameter that he (or she) thinks will give the right sound. In production you can go down to 15 micrometers (or even 12 if you don't mind somewhat higher than normal wire breakage), but based on my personal experience, I'd estimate that the Eminent, SPU Synergy and Orpheus all use considerably thicker wire - probably something on the order of 40 micrometers or even 45.

I quite agree with you that yokeless designs have certain advantages over traditional designs with polepieces (yokes). I simply don't agree that higher output efficiency is one of those advantages. Actually, if it is only output efficiency that you are pursuing, a traditional polepiece architecture is the easier one to do, first because the size of the magnet in a polepiece-based design can be far larger than what is practical in a yokeless design, and on top of that, the polepieces offer a greater degree of flux focusing than a magnet by itself can.

Incidentally, yokeless cartridges have been out on the market from the late 1970s, while as a subset of yokeless, designs involving ring magnets that fully surround the coils have been out since at least 1981, possibly earlier. So already a bit of time has elapsed since their introduction, certainly enough to refine the general concept :-). I do reckon that it is possible to refine the yokeless concept further, but then the same thing can likewise be said about polepiece-based designs. IME, neither one is maxxed-out yet, and each has a distinct set of trade-offs (advantages and disadvantages). A cartridge designer may validly prefer either, depending on his design goals, insights and resourcefulness.