Koetsu vs Dynavector

I own both the XV-1 and Koetsu Rosewood. Both are wonderful musical cartridges.
The dyna is a little more dynamic than the rosewood and has more extension in the upper frequencies ( not a lot but easily noticable). the dyna is more neutral top to bottom, whereas the rosewood has a liitle presence in the upper mids which project's some forwardness compared to the dyna. the rosewood has a little warmth in the mid bass that the dyna does not have.
the rosewood does help on some HOT recordings by being a little more relaxed in the upper frequencies.

An Ortofon SPU would be ideal for your vocal and small scale jazz tastes if you have a tionearm with removable headshell.

As I said in my post, I welcome the opinions of those who have had direct experience with the Mod Squad. I am simply commenting on the general trend in these posts for people to make broad ranging comments based on little, if any actual experience with a product. For those who this is not applicable to, feel free to comment but a comment with some "meat" more welcome. Simply saying that a product is bad is of no use at all. Do you think it is a compatibility issue? Do you think it is a sound quality issue? etc. I would also say that the personal attacks on my character are not welcome. I never attacked any individual in my postings. I simply commented on the general flavour of some of the postings.

Now on to specifics. The Zu has an output of 0.3mV. The cartridges that we have largely been discussing (the Koetsu Urushi and the Dynavector XV1s) have this much or more output. The only cartridges that I mentioned that have less are the Vermillion at 0.2 and the Kaitora at 0.26. So at least half the cartridges are of greater output so gain should not be an issue with them. For the other two, I again reiterate that a compatibility issues is very different than a quality issue. I have also clearly said that I agree that overall gain might be an issue with the lowest output cartridges. I doubt anyone is implying that phono stage quality can be simply gauged by overall gain, so perhaps we can stop dismissing the phono stage simply as having too little gain.

I would suggest that $4000 on a cartridge rarely makes any sense. This is not however what we are really discussing here. I have said that I am looking at a variety of cartridges at demo, used and closeout prices. This makes the cartridges much closer to $2000-2500. I don't agree that in such a price context, the cartridges that I have mentioned are out of line for the system that I have.

I would also argue that the typical idea of the turntable being the most important piece followed by the arm and then the cartridge is flawed logic. If you subscribe to the Linn school of thought that "Garbage in, equals garbage out", the logical extension is that the most important piece is the cartridge. It has the most difficult job in many ways as the only piece that has to actually change physical energy (groove modulations) into electrical energy. The other parts of the system can only serve to mess up the info retrieved by the cartridge. So I would say put the cartridge first and then allocate less to the rest of the chain (at least until you get to the speakers which have the next most difficult job, transferring electrical energy to physical energy).

I disagree that the cartridge is the most critical choice. Actually the tonearm is more important.

An excellent tonearm and average cartridge will outperform an average tonearm and excellent cartridge all day long.

That is not an opinion; it is a fact based on years of listening to hundreds of tonearm/cartridge combinations.

Dear Djeickme: IMHO trying to discuss on an electronic audio item ( specially a phono stage ) that was designed more than 20 years ago is useless for say the least.

+++++ " "The main audible difference between the two phono preamplifiers was caused by noise". He admits that the Mod Squad is very slightly noisier with very low output MC cartridges... " ++++++

so the gain is not the only issue there are several along the noise.

Perhaps you think that that phono stage ( by the today phono stage standards ) is up to the task to really match the XV-1 or Urushi, fine with me.

+++++ " can only serve to mess up the info retrieved by the cartridge " +++++

here IMHO the tonearm and phono stage have a critical " job " because depend on which tonearm is the cartridge matched to the signal quality performance and depend too with which phono stage that cartridge signal must pass through. Remember that is in the phono stage where IMHO that cartridge signal can/could " suffer " a severe degradation due to it " heavy " process on the signal to achieve the right gain ( in many cases almost 10,000 times before could be amplified for the system’s amplifier. ) and to conform according the RIAA eq.

One target in an analog audio system is ( regarding the cartridge signal ) add the less and loosing the less too, trying to preserve the cartridge signal integrity.

Anyway is your " call " and certainly you will do what makes you happy!, good.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

I agree with Audiofeil.
After more than 30 years of serious listening and only recently having acquired the Continuum Copperhead and DaVinci 12" Reference Grandezza, I have come to the realisation that the tone-arm is more important than the cartridge and perhaps even the turntable?
As for the Linn philosophy of 'source first' hierachy......I realised the fallacy of this years ago.
In my opinion the speakers always come first together with the room with which they are matched. Next comes the amplifier that drives those speakers the best. Everything else falls into place when you can get these right?