Tranfiguration Orpheus description


This is the first detailed description I've seen of the new Transfiguration Orpheus:

http://hifi.com.sg/products/cartridge/transfiguration/orpheus.htm

Anyone run across other info?

.
128x128nsgarch
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.
All,

The sound differences we heard between the O and Uni in Doug's system with his optimal settings aside, I've been thinking more and more about why the O didn't sound as good in Doug's system compared to mine. My impressions of the O in my 9-8-06 post did not seem to come through when we heard it in Doug's system.

Of course our systems are different, maybe the cartridge was damaged in transit (unlikely) or maybe it had to do with VTA.

In my system, I have the tonearm pivot base adjusted so that the tonearm is moderatley higher than parallel. i.e., there is more SRA or VTA.

In Doug's system, Paul felt the VTA for the O was just right when the tonearm was moderately lower than parallel. Similar position used for the Universe.

I wonder if this contributes significantly to the differences I hear between these cartridges in the different set ups and maybe even to the differences between the cartridges. Maybe the O prefers a higher SRA than the Universe?

We did not try setting the O at or above parallel. I now wish we would have tried the higher VTA just to rule that out.

Anyway, I think another comparison after break-in and with a higher range of VTA would be fruitful.

Dan, Doug, you're welcome to head down to Atlanta to compare all three. If not, I may be able to make it up again.

Sorry to the Tranny fans for some controversial results. But as I said, in my system it sounds absolutely fabulous.