BEST TONEARM CABLE PURIST VENUSTUS GRAHAM IC 70

John, that's interesting. Mark Levinson, in their highly acclaimed 32 and 320s phono stages does something similar. If you go to their website and open the pdf owner's manual for the optional phonostage cards, it talks about how/why they achieve a "balanced" input circuit for the cartridge, even though the inputs are RCA.

My guess is it's a way of achieving lower noise phono amplification, even if you have, for instance, dedicated tonearm cables that terminate with RCAs only.

Nsgarch,well we had the comparison yesterday.Yes the Venustas had a darker,more silken presentation.However the IC-70 had a more dynamic presentation,with fuller bass.All at first blush.

The arm was the Graham 2.2.What we did(three experienced audiophiles)was,first compare both cables with exact arm/cartridge parameters.Here,it was surprisingly close,with The Venustas being a bit smoother and refined,with a deeper stage.However the IC-70 had stronger bass and dynamics,with a wider stage.Yet two of us felt the Venustas was bringing out a bit more high freq detail,and smoother too.At this point a riot almost broke out,as my other pal(the most qualified of us all)was adamantly pushing for re-voicing to each cables strenghts.This was VERY time consuming.He won!

At this point,my friend Sid,a very experienced 'phile,asked if I would go through the process again(a pain in the butt,btw)but to see if the arm/cart parameters could be slightly re-voiced for each cables personality.This proved quite intriguing,as there was a definite arm/cart voicing for each cable(go figure).

The final result yielded a blacker background(I think)and enhanced depth,for the Venustas,with a slightly smoother high end and gorgeous high freq decay.The IC-70 still is more dynamic,in this particular set-up(my friend's),with a wider,almost explosive stage presentation.

Truthfully,I think there is a system dependant aspect to this,and am really at an impass,as to whether it was really all that big a deal.Even with the differences,which were clearly obvious,it was easy to voice the arm/cart parameters,slightly,to close the gap.This is my delemma,as I have gotten really good at this,yet don't like to rationalize,if something can be made better.

I have to really do some careful pondering,and maybe bring my own records to my friend's house,to quantify if it is worth spending the extra dough.Though I loved the Venustas,the IC-70 is NO slouch.Yet I cannot get away from the fact that I never heard such STUNNING high freq decay in my friend's system.

One final note(sorry for the length)--We had a 90 degree connector added to the arm side of the Venustas,to compensate for the required angle needed to properly connect into the Cosmos table(I have a Cosmos too).This turned out to be sourced from Cardas,and though superb,it almost required a pliers to seperate it from the arm.Also,due to the "pin" connections in the arm,the ninety degree(right angle) connectors did NOT allow the cabling to go straight down,as does the IC-70(which it should).I'm concerned that if I were to go Venustas,this could affect my table's suspension.Thought I would mention this.

Anyway,as this hobby is quite cerebral,I'm forced to think on all these matters,before making any changes.Also,I hate using my brain,too much!

Thanks for all your valuable thoughts,and any correspondence,on this matter,is always welcome.

Speedy, I have a couple questions and one comment.

The questions:

Were the Purist and the Graham cables both broken in? Same amount? >100 hours (Cardas test record makes this easy)

Were you using a separate phono preamp? If "yes" then were you using each phono cables' matching ICs (Purist or Graham respectively) between the phono preamp and the preamp?

Comment: At the small voltages we're talking about, inserting that additional rt. angle DIN in the signal chain would be a definite "no no", certainly for any apples-to-apples comparison. (Venustas are available w/ straight DIN plugs BTW)

As for "arm/cartridge parameters" and "re-voicing" them to match the cables -- well you can probably guress I take a dim view of that ;~)) As far as I'm concerned, you set your arm, cartridge, SRA, and load as optimally as you possibly know how, using any phono cable, perhaps even a "disinterested" third brand! Then leave it alone and run the comparison. Otherwise, you'll start "foolin' around" in order to hear what you think you should hear, and wind up in la la land, results-wise!

Of all the things I mentioned above necessary to design a fair and useful experiment, probably the biggest hassle is providing well broken-in specimens. That takes a bit of pre-planning, but is essential to making meaningful comparisons.

In my case, I bought my Venustas already broken in, and compared them only to the vdH silver hybrid that SME supplies w/ the SME V. That experiment only took about 3 minutes!

I have an extremely neutral and very revealing system. If the Venustas were any more "dynamic" top to bottom, it might actually result in listener fatigue. So it would be interesting to hear a (broken in) Graham, Hovland or Silver Breeze sometime to see if they are in fact bright(er). I guess the Cardas Golden Reference has gone out of favor for being too warm and schmaltzy -- but I wouldn't know, that's just what I hear ;~))

Nsgarsh,yes it was broken in.Also,the first comparison was with no changes,for voicing.Also,it was Jim Aud who added the right angle connector,so I assume he knew what he was doing.Do you still feel that I would benefit by not having this connection path?I could probably get away with the straight one,but is it a technically better way to go?And,why didn't Purist Audio recommend my pal NOT get the ninety degree connection,if it was not as effective?

You know I trust in your comments,so any afterthoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Great information, I am using a XLO Signature for my Graham and I am interested in these results. I think, the most critical part is the airy high frequency area. May I ask for the used Phono Stage ?