Tranfiguration Orpheus description

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.

Hi Andrew,

I'd love a trip down to Hot 'lanta. It's been many years since I was there.

It seems to me that we can rule out a difference in arms since both you and Doug are using the same arm. I have also wondered about the arm position on Doug's Triplanar but it does sound correct with the Universe. It does seem that there is something reacting differently in your's and Doug's systems. That's what makes this such a crazy, nutty hobby!

Hi again Raul,
After looking up the specs on the Dunlavy's and the B&W 803 I can see that there is a difference in LF reach, although that is not what Doug posted as what he perceived was missing from the O. So we are all left wondering what could be the issue at 47K loading, but it's hard for us to say since we were not there to hear what has been described.

Tim, I don't think I read the same posts by Doug that you read. I believe that Doug on several occasions has stated that this whole exercise is nothing more than some fun between a few enthusiasts. He never offered his observations as anything more than what was heard with his system and two different cartridges in a few hours of listening. It seems that you and a few others have taken his words to mean that his opinion is the definitive word. You applied that spin.

While I do appreciate Doug's opinions I certainly am not ready to go along with the conclusions that some here have reached about disregarding the O based on these written comments when I have not heard this cartridge in anyone's system. The issue, from my perspective, has not been what Doug has had to say about the O. Many people are going to have different opinions on that. The issue here is that someone, one of us, has offered an honest opinion only to have their honesty and motives attacked by some.

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.

Oh really? I wonder what Nakatsuka-san would think of a customer who thought him such a sloppy craftsman as to make a cartridge that had to be raked BACKWARD to achieve proper SRA? (to say nothing of the hurt feelings of the tonearm designer!)

I guess a proper comparison remains in the future . . . .