Tranfiguration Orpheus description

I've exchanged emails with Doug but never met him. Based on the emails and the consistency of his posts, I believe there are no reasons to question his veracity and/or integrity. In some cases I do not agree with his points of view however there is no doubt they are honest and heartfelt.

That being said, the "dice were loaded before the shootout" assertion was both a cheap shot and disingenuous. In any head to head match up of components will there rarely exist a 50/50 split preference. In most, but not all, one component is generally preferred. Again and no offense to the Tranny owners, the UNIverse simply may be a better product. I import a cartridge line from England but I've yet to hear anything better than the UNIverse. I wish my product was as good.

Dear Andrew/Doug: Interesting cartridges test but a little useless.

It is obvious that Andrew and Doug have a different music perception top to bottom frequency range and especially in the mid and low bass. I'm not sure who is nearest to the music but maybe could be because one of them hear more often live music or maybe because Andrew system goes really deep in the bass and he can perceive things that Doug can't in its system ( the Andrew brain is already equalized to his system and in a way its brain treat to synthesize about ).

Both systems can't be more different: a wood TT against all metal one, speakers/room, phonolinepreamp, amplifier and cables, add to all these that Andrew don't bring with him the LP's that he knows better.

The other subject is that the set up of the U was executed exactly to the Doug music sound priorities at a very high level of critic ( that VTA madness each LP !!! ). I can't be sure which one will be the results if the O " suffer " the same high level of set up.

Now, how many hours they take on the tests? and how they make those tests?. For any cartridges comparison we need a procedure to follow for that comparison could be useful.

There are, at least, two things that disturb me: first is that the O can't track the Trio LP and the second is that the sound at 47K was a very lesser one.
The former could be that the O suspension it is not settle down or that that O is out of specs ( we can't know it at this time because we don't have any info about how many hours needs the O. Andrew please ask to the manufacturer. Maybe the O needs 300 hours, who knows. Btw, my Colibri needs 300 hours and after that Dr. Van denHul makes the last adjustment. ), the 47K could be a problem with the Doug phonolinepreamp because in the Andrew one everything is right ( at least at 47K ).

I think that with all these variables ( and others ) we can't have a fair opinion about the O. Some people in the thread, especially Mark give us some opinions about the O that from my point of view were irresponsible taking in count who is Mark.

I had the opportunity to heard the V/W and none has the characteristics that Doug mentioned and I don't think that the O design/build put up for sale its new flag-ship model that is inferior in its quality sound reproduction than the lower models, I assume that they make a extended voicing about.

I think that before we make a false assumption ( like Mark ) about the O we have to wait a little more where we could have more O owners experiences, of course that always exist the possibility that the O designer/builder made a mistake with the O.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

BRAVO Doug for posting your detailed and well written review. Your insight into what you and Paul hear in your system carries much weight with myself. Please don't let someone's insecurity with his own system or ears deter you from posting your fine tuned and to the point thoughts. BTW, what would shipping be on that defaced nickel?

Larry, excellent response, could not have said it any better!

Mark, if you want an "O", just get one and keep your snide remarks to yourself. We have lost WAY too many great posters such as TWL because of a few posters like you. I would however, enjoy reading what you hear when you get a new cart or do a shootout of your own.

Now after we all come back in from recess, I hope we are buddies again...

Hi Raul,

I guess you really had something to say since your response got posted twice! :) Just kidding, I know you did some editing.

Doug did express much of the same reservations that you did concerning such a quick cartridge comparison. I think you did a very good job of giving the details of those concerns. In regards to the LF response of Doug's system I can tell you that his system system has plenty of chest vibrating low end response. Perhaps not what you would expect from a subwoofer, but still plenty deep and strong. I'm curious why you think there is something wrong with Doug's phono stage since the 47K loading sounded shrill in the HF. Isn't that what one would expect when loading an MC that much? I know from my own experineces that 47K usually makes things sound much like and old transistor radio. In fact, if 47K sounds good in Andrew's phonostage I have to wonder if that load is really being applied.

Ignoring the snipping that has occured, it does seem to me that it would be fun to re-visit the "O" after a few hundred hours of break-in. By then I hope to have my XV-1s broken in as well so perhaps there could be comparison of the 3 that may help some to grasp the differences in these cartridges. I know it would help me immensely!

Hi Raul,

Thanks for your insights. We understand this "test" was fairly useless, especially given the low hours on Andrew's cartridge. Very true.

Andrew's speakers go lower than mine, but when I described bass differences I described what we DID hear, not what we didn't. One cartridge produced strong, tuneful and articulate bass down to the lower limit of the system. The other had solid but somewhat "one-note" bass, down to that same limit. Again, this may easily improve with break in or on another tonearm, but the differences we heard were between the two cartridges.

We performed our "VTA madness for each LP" with the Orpheus just as carefully as with our own cartridge. Andrew heard the differences and agreed that Paul had found the right spot.

My phono stage has no known problems at 47K. I've listened to six or eight cartridges through those inputs and the performance has always been exemplary, subject only to the fact that 47K is not optimal for most LOMC's, as you know. The Orpheus's upper mids and lower highs were peaky, just what you'd expect from a low hours, 2.5 ohm cartridge at 47K. This is not a flaw in the Orpheus or the phono stage, it's normal behavior. Nsgarch, a Tranny user, recommends much lower impedances and I agree with him. Other than finding the Orpheus's ideal impedance once it's fully broken in, this is a non-issue. Why Andrew's phono stage doesn't produce a rising top end at 47K I do not know, since I'm quite unfamiliar with it.

We have not dissed the Orpheus. If we hadn't had a UNIverse to compare, its thicker bass and slightly blended inner harmonics could have gone unnoticed. The Orpheus is a good cartridge that does nothing obviously wrong, as I said. It simply wasn't (at this stage in its life) able to match the clarity, low noise floor, microdynamics and "eery" realism of the ZYX. That may change next week or next month or never, so this comparison was just a snapshot in time - "useless" in the long run.

We also said nothing about the Orpheus vs. the V, the W or any other cartridge. I have no reason to doubt SirSpeedy's enthusiastic report of the new model's superiority over its predecessors, or your characterization of them based on your own experience. But you have not compared them with a UNIverse either...