Tranfiguration Orpheus description

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.

There is no scarcity problem in the US. The distributor has cartridges in stock. If a dealer is telling your friend this is the case, he is misrepresenting for some reason. Could be that grey-market sources are scarce ($2750 for an Orpheus...), but one should also bear in mind that they will not be able to provide any warranty coverage (which those of you who have had any long term experience with delicate mc carts will know is very important--having a real dealer and a distributor who will take care of things if/when problems arise).

To quickly address some of the other issues mentioned above:

The V and W are not "just introduced". the V has been around since about 2000 and the W was introduced 3 years ago. The Orpheus design has been in progress for almost 2 years, with numerous delays.

While the two look fairly similar on paper, in cartridges, where they are mechanically transducing incredibly large amounts of information at radically high speeds, the slightest differences can be huge sonically.

I would agree that the Tempers are among the best in the world and did not expect much difference...some slight improvements here and there. To some extent, this is true, except that the improvements are substantial and in almost every performance category. More macro-dynamics, slightly improved micro-dynamics (always the Temper's strong point), considerably more resolution, though with a somewhat more relaxed and natural-sounding presentation (yes, a seeming contradiction). More transparency. Quieter. Deeper and better bass articulation. So far, I have not found a record that will saturate the high-frequencies, including piccolo blasts. Tone and timbre are dead-on neutral. At first, I thought the balance might be slightly warmer than the W, but, upon extended listening, realized that the balance is the same, there is just a bit less smearing on top (which tends to whiten up the sound) and there is more resolution in the mids/lower-mids, which allows you to hear more harmonic texture in that range, which comes across as warmer. The main noticable difference is a musical one, however. I find myself following rhythmic and emotional lines in the music that I had never noticed before.

The Orpheus is a significant improvement over the Temper series. However, if you have a Temper V/W that is still performing well, you might want to put that money somewhere else in the chain, for example, a better tonearm or table, or phono stage, as these things can effect very large changes in the character and quality of a system.

Well I lied,when I stated I'd not post again.Sorry!

Nsgarsh,I have heard the Magic Diamond in a very high quality setup(walker/Lamm/Kharma)with my own British Decca pressings.It is a wonderful cartridge.IMO,it is NO better than the other fine designs,which overcrowd(not really)the high end.That is NOT a criticism!To me,and the way it sounded on my own vinyl,it is no better than the Temper.It IS a wonderful cartridge,though,but you can save alot on gas,by not having to cross over any state lines!See!!I already saved you money.
In honesty,the two standout cartridges I have heard,in the last year are the Dynavector,and Univ.Followed closely by the Titan-i.All this means NOTHING,though,as it is only my own tastes and perceptions,as well as types of music I like.
I don't include the Temper-v here,ONLY because to me,when some hobbyist "toots" about what they own(human nature)there is a credibility issue.As you know,the Temper "series" is absolutely competitive with the best.
I never A/B'd it with the rest,but have to go,solely,on how I perceive musical "convincingness" when hearing a specific design.
Bc3,I decided NOT to go grey market,as did my friend,in scoping out the "elusive O"!Sorry,but elusive it is,and the fine dealer who sold us the Tempers,as well as the previous Temper Supremes states there is a short supply,though this will sort itself out in a few short weeks.
I find it hard to believe he does not know what he is talking about,as he can make an instant sale,with my friend.He has always been completely honest with us,and is one reason I like to deal with him.
As to the grey market issue...There is a good reason it exists."Cost Savings"!Yet to me,as of my last conversation with my own little hobbyist group,and common sense,I see no reason to take such a chance with a "pricey"/delicate investment.The regular dealer "way",with a fair trade-in,seems to be the way for me.Just,please don't go over the top with the trade-in costs,or you risk the possibility of making it viable to sell the Temper,used,and buy a different attractive design,based on some particular dealer wanting to gain a sale,with ahealthy discount.this happens alot.I mean no disrespect here,and hope your own input holds up,when I do finally check it out.
Best!

sirspeedy, I wouldn't say it means NOTHING... all of the cartridges mentioned are truly wonderful. What a luxury of riches at this point in time, when analog is supposed to be dead and buried...the technological and performance gains in cartridges/turntables/tonearms since 1980 (Sony Discman...) far, far outstrips the gains made in the digital realm. That is, analog started out way better and the delta for analog improvement in the intervening 25 years has been quite a bit bigger... I find it amazing that so many still pour so much creative energy and passion into refining a technology pronounced "dead" a quarter century ago. And bless them all for doing so, since we get to reap the benefits. jcarr, the Suganos, Matsudaira, aj vdH, Albert Lukascheck, Seiji Yoshioka...and these guys do it for love of music. I don't think any of them are getting rich off of phono cartridges.

You are correct that, at this level, it becomes a matter of taste and/or system-matching. My taste also runs toward the Transfiguration balance, but I could very easily live with/love any number of others (Dynav., AirTight, ZYX, big Koetsu's...they all have their strengths and attractions.

btw, the U.S. distributor has several Orpheus in stock and has not been backordered since April.

Jonathan, I wouldn't presume to question your historical perspective ;--) Though I've been intrigued with the MC cartridge (design) since the early seventies, I just can't recall which cartridge you're referring to that had an actual ring (doughnut?) magnet around the coil. (And wouldn't that require a rather long cantilever?)

For a long time, I thought the Colibri, with its ultra-short cantilever and no front pole was as far as the pole design would go, even if it meant settling for low output to get maximum benefit from the short cantilever. And along with the front/rear discs of the the Lyras, and the incredibly complex magnetic structure of the Dyna, represented three interesting variations on the pole design.

I've always assumed (am I wrong?) that a low coil resistance, assuming a given wire dia., is indicative of a coil with fewer windings and low(er) effective mass. So is there a flaw in my coming to the conclusion that the new Orpheus' (high-ish) output combined with its (low-ish) coil resistance means the magnetic field surrounding the coil must be extremely strong? I just can't understand how else those specs could be what they are.
.