Dan_ed, I agree with you. An improvement ( an improvement in the mere sense of the word ... sonically spoken..) is indeed (or should be...) apparent and clearly noticeable within a mere few minutes.
With tonearms anyway (even if there are souls out there believing that tonearms need hundreds of hours of break-in).
I for one do still believe (sounds better then "I know"...) that tonearm and cartridge ( if its an LOMC then add the matching SUT to the list ) do form ONE integrative mechanical spring/mass-system and none can be "judged" ( if at all ) - not in absolute terms nor in subjective - without the other.
However - the original idea to perform this comparison with the A90 was a GOOD idea, as this cartridge does offer a really good match (mechanical-wise) to either of the two tonearms in question.
For any future task like this - folks, RMAF 2011 is only a few weeks away...;-) .... - it shouldn't be too hard to arrange arrival in time for all contenders and a fixed set up with a TT giving space for two tonearms ( adjusted for the same geometry ?) accompanied by a preamp with two phono-inputs ( a switch...).
That would further eliminate the "equal-volume-question".
I am sure that Ortofon would be willing to provide two closely matched ( electrical-mechanical ) A90 for the next shoot-out.
But that shoot-out RMAF 2011 will be between the Talea MK2.2 vs Schroeder SQ Reference 3.1.
And I will certainly not wanna miss that show down.....
