Tranfiguration Orpheus description

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.
.

OK Bc3,I'll bite.Firstly, your description of the differences in musical presentation of the "O" over the Tempers(around later than 2000,btw)is a "glowing" testimonial as to it's clear superiority!I don't detect the word "subtle" anywhere.I hope you are right.
The comment about not over-saturating high frequencies,like "piccolo blasts",was a cold splash of water to me!It is just here,where the big boys stand apart from the wanna be pretenders.NOT necessarily in the actual cartridges we sport,but the hobbyist's ability to actually get that particular parameter "right".I can't!I think I know what I'm doing,too.This has ALWAYS been a "sticking point" with me,and I have heard few systems that can really "do piccolos",at volume,using the LP.DAMN HARD!!
Surely,you must be a better man than I,and if you have not overstated your pride of ownership in the "O",you are on "Holy Ground"!Piccolo blasts at high volume,on classical repertoire,as recorded on the much sought after,early pressing discs we all have come to love(I'm talking of English,not Dutch,Deccas,EMI,Lyrita,Argo,Orig early Shaded Dogs,some black label Vanguard Stereolabs,and the Early maroon label Mercury series lp's)are almost "impossible" to get right,from disc to disc.I have heard only one system,owned by a friend that can do this convincingly,and consistently.And I really believe that owner's room is located between two black holes,where the laws of physics break down.It has almost been my own personal "Holy Grail"!Are you claiming the average yutz,like me,can,maybe gat this?"I dunoh about dat"!You better re-read your post,and maybe make an appology,for getting my blood pressure up!
NOW,your comments are,in actuality an endorsement of something that I may have to kill for,if true,and I don't want to break any laws,or hurt anyone.I hope you fudged your findings a bit(C'mon,admit it.You did.Right?),or possibly you had a bit too much Merlot,when you claim to have heard such piccolo at volume,performance.Flutes maybe?I could live with that-:)
BTW,it would be quite interesting to know what supporting componentry allowed for such observations,that have me "running for my checkbook"!

Best!

Hey,is this my pal,Eddie,kidding around with me? -:)

Mark,

re: piccolos

A few weeks ago Dan_Ed and his wife rendezvoused at my place with Nick Doshi. The occasion was the delivery of Dan's new preamp.

(I invited you but you were busy in FL - and please accept my belated condolences. I only just noticed that your Dad passed away.)

Since it was near the 4th I had Sousa marches spinning (on a really great old London LP). Dan's wife enjoyed them and I played 'Stars and Stripes Forever' twice, because she loves the piccolo solo. It was July 4th/live band concert loud and absolutely clean. It can be done.

You're right that it's hard, and of course it takes more than just a great cartridge. The entire amplification chain and all the signal path wire must be very good. Not easy, but doable, and a thrill to hear.

Surprised me too, which is why I remembered it and mentioned it... I suspect it is a combination of ability to track and no saturation. System was fairly modest and at a local dealer: all Quad electronics, the new (Chinese) tall Quad speakers, Basis 2200/Vector. He also had the new Airtight cartridge (I believe this is built by My Sonic, but Mr. Miura of Airtight was very involved in the design), which was also wonderful and could do this too, however, that system was much more money (SME 30, Avalon Diamond Eidolon, Wavestream electronics mostly).

Partly related, in response to ngarsh's discussion of resistance/output, I think much is due to the new coil former material. Immutable claims that the coil former itself is responsible for some gain in output. Perhaps jcarr could verify whether this is possible, though it makes sense. I know one of the drawbacks of the theoretically great idea of the ruby coil former in the Benz Ruby/LP/Cardasheart was the fact that without any magnetics, they have to use a bunch of windings to achieve a usable output. Yes, he avoids eddy currents, the moving mass is exceedingly low, but internal resistance is fairly high. The earliest ruby's from Benz (1.8mV ?) were wonderful, but needed a lot of phonostage oompf and quiet. If my years of listening to tube amps taught me anything, it was that magnetics are THE most important thing...acrosound, peerless...to today, with the tango, tamura and viva transformers, using permalloy and amorphous core materials. This was the reason for the big initial jump in performance, I think, when the W arrived, as it got some of it extra output (according to Immutable) from the new coil former material (the V originally used permalloy). Later (post 2004) V's switched to this material too, bringing output up from .25 to .34, with no change in internal resistance. This also brought the V back to a position of expected sonic superiority (very slight) over the W (given the right phonostage), which the W had held before the change. Just like the apparent edge that alnico seems to hold over other magnets...hard to explain, but easy to hear (sweetness of the big Dynavector, the Olympus from Lyra (this only by hearsay...), the phy-hp drivers...)

Subtle/not subtle? I would say that the improvements in most of the categories of performance I mentioned are relatively subtle (except macrodynamics). Also, upon first listen, the difference is relatively subtle, because the Orpheus is a more subtle/refined/natural sounding cartridge, but, the sum of all those subtle improvements brings about a very un-subtle net effect in terms of musical and emotional connection. You will see/hear.

nope, not Eddie...