Tranfiguration Orpheus description

I am sure that Doug would want the UNIverse to be better than the “O” since he has invested in the UNIverse ...

Larry, I'm not invested with an expensive cartridge (yet) and I don't have a lot of dog in this fight, but I'm gonna disagree with your apologism. In contrast to the above quote, I don't see this as a zero sum game and I'll suggest it is counterproductive to turn the discussion into winners and losers. And yes, I am likewise bothered by the constant drumbeat of "my stuff is the best". It comes across to me as hucksterism. Besides, my stuff is best. :-)

Doug, your dismissive tone raised my hackels. I don't question integrity or intent - thats just what I felt when I read your 'review'. It came across as "we have golden ears and this thing is flawed". Indirect analogies like the one made between the Orpheus and the PV-11 did not sit well. In the run-up of excitement and anticipation, what reaction did you expect? Even though they were stated in an irritating way, I got value from your comments and I appreciate your taking the time to write them and will agree with Larry that I look forward to your sharing further experience. Whether your observations prove the exception or the definitive pronouncement or something in between, at this point I think we need more input.

No other reports I've read indicate the same level of sonic abberration from the O, and Transfiguration has a proven ability to make excellent cartridges. Sure it may turn out to be turd - wouldn't be the first mistake in high-end audio - but we're not there yet. It would be really valuable to hear a comparison done in some different tonearms. Perhaps the Triplanar does not drain well the very frequencies the Orpheus may not damp; perhaps like the Universe, the O may be arm sensitive; perhaps Tranny's sound great in Phantoms but not so great in Ikedas, etc. etc. etc. Maybe under optimal conditions the Uni actually earns its $2k premium. I'm sure there are combinations for every cartridge and tonearm that show both well and poorly. That's why I suggest we be sensitive to context, and not too quick to speak with finality. I read Raul's remarks here as spot-on.

Few of us would say "I get more enjoyment listening to my stereo than you do yours". So let's agree to pull back a bit from one-upmanship about equipment. No one wants to make a mistake with an expensive purchase, but that doesn't mean there has to be only one 'best'. Likewise, as Speedy says, debate is good and no reason not to 'have at it'. I offer that we share a common enjoyment of music and there are lots of different routes to an enjoyable hobby. By the time you get to page 3, these threads usually exhibit a bit of testiness, so I suppose we're right on schedule. ;->

Cheers,
Tim

Dear Dan: The Andrew Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-IVa speakers are almost full range and only a subwoofer system could beat it in the bass regard.

The differences in the quality sound perception ( everything else the same ) between a full range system and one like the Doug one is huge ( I'm not saying that the Dou system was not a good one, I'm sure it is. ) not only in the low bass reproduction but all over the frequency range including sounstage. That last one or one and a half music octave makes a huge difference and those differences are for the better. When you hear it you can't live with out it and ( like Andrew ) when you have it you can discern better on the music and this fact has a very simple reason: who could have better music perception: one person that the only music that he heard is " live music " or a person that the only music that he heard is through an audio system?, now: who could have better music perception ( all things the same ), one person that heard always music through a full range system than other person that heard always through a non full range system?

Doug knows that one of my old " feelings " ( good feelings ) about his system always was and still is the limited bass frequency range response that had his 803's, but today I know that he can't do almost nothing about because its place space limitations.

About the 47K it is difficult for sure to know where is the problem but at least in the Andrew CAT ( btw, in my Essential 3150 I never had that kind of problem ) the problem does not exist and that's why I " feel " that the problem is in the Doug unit and yes Dan we usually hear a brightness at 47K but I think that was not the problem from what Doug and Andrew posted. What is sure is that the Andrew O is incompatible with the Doug unit at 47K .

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Dear Doug: I don't want to repeat here what I already posted to Dan ( before I read yours ), there where some answers about.

I don't want, too, start with an U controversy ( please don't ), far from there.

Doug, somewhere I posted that I never had the opportunity to heard the U only a Fuji and a 3. From my very first posts about I always give my personal opinion about ZYX cartridges: faulty at both frequency extremes range, especially at the low bass. Remember?.

The Andrew opinion about is, at least, the five other opinion in this forum about the U little problem bass performance. If you recall, I told you that you could not hear the U bass problems because your audio system can't goes low down, remember?. Well nothing is change and you are right I never heard the U and if the designer can't fix the low bass subject is useless for me to heard it, as a fact I want to buy a ZYX unit but something a little better than the U and I'm not saying that the U is not a good cartridge: it is, the subject is that at the moment I own several good cartridges and I need no more but something better. How " sound " you the U2?, I have to wait for it.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Doug, Larry,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate that. I tried to call it how I heard it. Since some folks claim that their cartridges sound great out of the box or pretty decent at 30 or so hours, I thought it would be interesting to compare. Anyway, certainly not an ideal situation. Oh well.

I tried to make the following comments in a post on Sunday but it looks like it didn't go through. that is:

Intrestingly, I think the O sounds pretty damn good in my system and doesn't seem to have the flaws we perceived when comparing it to the Uni in Doug's system. In other words, the O doesn't sound flat, compressed and opaque in my system where it did in Doug's. I can happily live with the sound that I get in mys system. It seems to do just about everything right. I mentioned this to Doug and Paul while I was at their place.

That said, the differences we heard in Doug's system were apparent and I can only imagine how amazing the Uni must sound in my system. Hopefully I'll have the chance to hear it in my system some day.

Andrew

Dear Andrew: +++++ " . I can happily live with the sound that I get in mys system... " +++++

This is the most important subject to you.

+++++ " how amazing the Uni must sound in my system.. " +++++

I don't know but maybe you will be surprised about!!!

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.