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 Andrew: I think it is time to try the Orpheus. Glad to hear that everything finally settle down.

Yes, Neil is very experienced about.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Doug,

Thanks for validating my observations. The improvement from break-in is very noticeable and it feels like it is getting better by the 10's of hours now. Like it has passed a hump.

I agree it would have been nice to experiment with SRA. I suspect that we were closer to 0 SRA in your setup. incedentally, the instruction manual does recommend to set it to a positive SRA and that a parallel tonearm does not necessarily achieve this. I found 0 SRA with the arm lower in the back from parallel and a 1.5 SRA is achieved with the arm higher than parallel. As I mentioned, at this point the 47K does not sound very good. In the beginning I wasn't getting much ariness at 100 but was at 47K. Now I get a lot of ariness at 100. As mentioned before, everything else is better too. You should hear the bass now. Pretty amazing. Deep and defined. Not tubby like we heard at your place.

Please come visit next time you're in Atlanta.

Andrew
Andrew - were there particular epiphany points during break-in (30 hrs, 60 hrs, etc.) where things really gelled, or have improvements kinda trickled in across time? Thanks for taking the time to post your reports.

Wrt to arm position and 1.5 degree SRA - probably good to remember that different arms on different tables will yield different relative up/down positions. With my SME V + Teres, 6mm up from stylus vertical still has the back-end of the tonearm down relative to the cartridge end.

On a side note, I tried checking azimuth via the 50x scope and first-surface mirror method. Yes, I had to tape the mirror to the table to cantilever it out from platter so I could position the scope. And I bent my flexible Littl Lite to bounce off the mirror right between the front of the scope and the cartridge. Got a decent image. But eventually I gave up.

One problem was the thinness of the cartridge profile viewed head on. It was hard to gauge the "equality of the X" across the real and reflected stylus. Nowhere as obvious as the side view for setting vertical SRA. Plus I was never sure the scope lens was absolutely perpendicular to a line bisecting the stylus head-on - if the scope is off just a little on either side, it makes a difference in perception of the angles. I suspect it might be do-able by someone with better eyes. 8-) Maybe a scope with a reticle or cross hairs might be helpful in setting the stylus at 90 degrees to the mirror surface.

But isn't it really the coils or engine we're trying to get positioned? Using the physical stylus position should get close on a well made cartridge, but even there, the stylus is probably no more absolutely guaranteed in the proper position relative to the coils than anything else on a cartridge. It was cool to do, but I think I'll stick with the meter method then ears.

Cheers,
Tim
Tim,

Good question. The improvements were probably happening gradually but I heard a large change in the 160-180 hours point as if it had passed through some wall. The sound is now much more natural and pure.

Based on your experience, it looks like the magnification methods is not appropriate for azimuth. I'm wondering about the Wally device for that.

Andrew