Hi Timeltel... nope you did not misstate my post.... my ear was once more educated (I used to work in a "hifi" shop in the 80's)... but it is something you have to practice....
Years of living with Quad gear (although the speakers have now been replaced with Gallo's due to WAF) - means I can instantly tell some things by ear.... But other things require constant practice of the critical faculty..... sort of "intellectual listening"... which I have not done in many years.
I am hesitant to characterise the Shure - mostly due to a lack of baseline to compare to.
I have been enjoying it, it is drawing a lot of detail from the records, in terms of overall tonal balance it is warmer, more mid/bass rich than the Sony XL-MC104 I also have. (which is of course a HO MC)
This is NOT an MC vs MM property, as the Empire/Benz MC1 (also HO) I have has a similar tonal balance to the Shure.
A few weeks back I carefully recorded a series of tracks using several different cartridges (Shure 1000e, Ortofon TM20, 320u, Sony XL-MC104, Benz/Empire MC1HO)... then to ensure I avoided any psychoacoustic effect I measured the digital recording and adjusted them digitally for the average RMS volume level to be within 0.01db.
Then I listened to the results.... at the starting point I was hearing differences - once adjusted for level they initially seemed to have disappeared. (yep volume does trick one!)
On further listening, I found that many of my original comments about the differences between the cartridges still applied - but had been reduced by an order of magnitude.
In terms of tonal balance my cartridges clearly fell into two camps "warm" and "sweet" - the latter is a camp of one with only the Sony XL-MC104, which has a lovely clarity / sweetness in the highs... very appealing on some recordings. It sounds nothing like the Benz/Empire MC1 - which has a similar low/mid warmth as do the MM's.
Here are some of my notes from listening tests a few weeks back on those cartridges.... shortly after starting these tests my ADC blew.... my current testing and calibration is part of my process of setting up the new ADC / Phono Stage before I can listen again... the listening tests also compared a Toshiba SR-Q630 to my Revox Linatrak
Shure 1000e (with Jico Replacement N99e eliptical)
T1: very very similar to SAS, marginally more mid-highs perhaps - seems less ""pure"" than SAS, loses just a touch of the detail . Lows seemed a bit less detailed too.
T2: loses some of the Timbre of the instruments over the SAS, More timbre and woodiness than MC1, or Sony
T3: More detailed than MC1?
T5: keeps orchestra instruments more distinct than most in loud passages
Shure 1000e with N97xE SAS stylus (Damper up) (listening tests incomplete)
Track 1: equal or greater bass/mids to the MC1, but with more detailed, fwd high end - seems like there is more there.
Track 2: slightly sweeter than the 320U - more air?
Ortofon 320u
Track 1:Pleasant, Neutral, detailed - very similar to Shure and TM20, not quite as airy as shure, definitely more there than the MC1, a touch sweeter too (maybe?)
Track 2: mid highs slightly more prominent, lacks the richness of the 1000E-SAS in the low-mids. Very nice not tiring at all, detailed, sweet, Hs more of the timbre than the ShureN99, TM20, MC1, Sony - revox 1.55g shows signs of mistracking on peaks... - INVESTIGATE, VTF error?
Track 3: proper balance is present lows mids are there - timbre is not reproduced as well as 1000E-SAS - Highs are more bell like, tinkly than 1000E-SAS... but less real? Slightly ear tiring.
Ortofon TM20
Track 1: Pleasant, Neutral, detailed
Track 2: - no flaws, but nothing WOW either - more woody bloom to the strings (body timbre) compared to MC1 or Sony. Drawing out slightly more detail than MC1
Track 3: as per 2 - tendency to tiring?
T4:
T5: Some break up on complex - big passages
Empire MC1HO
Track 1:More midrange, lacks the sweetness of the Sony - feel like its missing out on some of the high sweet harmonics, Midrange more fwd, highs more recessed - Still a sweet recording - less ""obvious"", Midrange-lows and lows seem better than XL-MC104
Track 2: feels very neutral - actually a nice sound - middle of the road, neutral. (missing harmonics & tombre compared to SAS)
Track 3: Neutral - bottom end feels too lightweight - slightly tiring to the ear? - slightly less tiring to the ear - perhaps due to lack of detail..
Track 4: Sound more woodwind than with the Sony - a hint of Nasal tone?
T5: Keeps instruments distinct in complex large orchestra movements - especially the lows - good performance - more sensitive to scratches etc - cause it to skip where SAS does not
Shure 1000e with N97xE SAS Stylus (with damper brush down)
Track 1: More midrange/body than sony - very clear, detailed yet natural - smooth, richer than sony, mellow
Track 2: smoother than TM20 low mids are full rich, mellow (Nice) - slightly sweeter than 320U, more air? Overtones, Timbre (harmonics?) clearer- more real than MC1 - More body in mid bass strings (body sound more evident/clearer)
Track 3: Mids/lows are present and full - timbre is excellent - sounds very real - almost too much some of the percussion is possibly tiring (mistracking?)
Track 4: Wood timbre is clear
T5: 1.5g VTF version seperates instruments better than 2g....
Sony Xl-MC104
Track 1: Clear, bell like tones on 1st track sweet tones, very relaxed - natural sound- I like it - seems to have more air to the highs, loses some of the weight of the lower registers - piano is lighter than it should be.
Track 2: possibly a smidge more air around the flute - loses some of the weight and timbre of the instruments in the bass/low mids - Tiring to the ear longer term? - possible mistracking distortion causing tiring? - On revox not tiring. very good, still missing some of the wood body from the SAS
Track 3: Piano sounding glassy missing midrange and bass weight... tinkly - Piano is light weight... Tiring to the ear (Mistracking?-Tosh)
Track 4: Good sound can hear wood timbre - souding better on Revox
T5: keeps the instruments clearly distinct even in complex loud passages - very nice!
Keep in mind that I am returning to Vinyl after a 14 year hiatus... so I am learning and re-learning stuff as I go.
My Notes above were made before I level matched all the recordings (everything was recorded at 24/96, then pulled into a multi track session and perfectly time matched, so I can A/B between them, and switch to any of the cartridges at any time.... mostly I listen to a whole track at a time, but when a detail attracts my attention, I can switch to the same track & time on a different cartridge with a couple of mouse clicks)
Once level matched I initially thought they all sounded the same (!) - More careful listening over the next few days showed that all my comments were still applicable, but far far less obvious.
Once I get the Software RIAA in place and working properly, along with the right Loading for each cartridge (which will take a while as I won't have the Low C cables for at least another week or 2) I plan to redo the above exercise this time with an without individual cartridge EQ using Pink Noise....
Given the vagaries/imperfections of mechanical reproduction, I strongly believe that the differences I can hear will once more drop another order of magnitude once the cartridges are EQ'd for frequency response - and individually loaded for best F/R and minimal EQ (ie first adjust loading, to best optimise F/R - which will minimise the amount of EQ required, and the inherent distortions added by a layer of processing). But I won't know until I get there.
We are today at a stage in technological progress, where any cartridge should be able to be used with (adjusted to) a flat frequency response.... This combined with RoomEQ should (theoretically) put us a lot closer to the original Master Tape.... (I hesitate to say the original performance, as many recordings are not a performance in a live venue but a studio session or/and a fully artificial construct...)
In terms of value, I think that the vintage top end MM's are Huge value, and with an appropriate new top end stylus (preferably Shibata or other LC) on a good cantilever - such as SAS can provide performance competing with top end MC's at prices that are one or more orders of magnitude lower.
A Shure M97 with SAS can be set up for well under $200... or an Empire 2000/4000 with Shibata, AT11/12/similar with Shibata... etc...
The Ortofon 320u is p-mount (with 1/2" adapter if needed) and has a LC tip, not the most sophisticated cantilever - but I picked it up new for $40 !!!
I also wonder whether once properly adjusted and EQ'd - the lighter VTF / Higher Compliance and Higher trackability of the 80's cartridges will allow them to outperform some of the TOTL MC's in the megabuck range? (especially on the ULM Revox Arm....4g - but also on the servo damped JVC QL-Y5F... once I get it up and working)- I don't own or have access to TOTL MC gear in any case, so the question will remain academic for the foreseeable future. (the MC1HO I own was at the low end of the Benz/Empire MC range in the early 90's.... the Sony XL-MC104 was TOTL in the early 80's.... both are fine elipticals, and good cartridges, but I don't believe them to be competitive with the current SOTA)
Years of living with Quad gear (although the speakers have now been replaced with Gallo's due to WAF) - means I can instantly tell some things by ear.... But other things require constant practice of the critical faculty..... sort of "intellectual listening"... which I have not done in many years.
I am hesitant to characterise the Shure - mostly due to a lack of baseline to compare to.
I have been enjoying it, it is drawing a lot of detail from the records, in terms of overall tonal balance it is warmer, more mid/bass rich than the Sony XL-MC104 I also have. (which is of course a HO MC)
This is NOT an MC vs MM property, as the Empire/Benz MC1 (also HO) I have has a similar tonal balance to the Shure.
A few weeks back I carefully recorded a series of tracks using several different cartridges (Shure 1000e, Ortofon TM20, 320u, Sony XL-MC104, Benz/Empire MC1HO)... then to ensure I avoided any psychoacoustic effect I measured the digital recording and adjusted them digitally for the average RMS volume level to be within 0.01db.
Then I listened to the results.... at the starting point I was hearing differences - once adjusted for level they initially seemed to have disappeared. (yep volume does trick one!)
On further listening, I found that many of my original comments about the differences between the cartridges still applied - but had been reduced by an order of magnitude.
In terms of tonal balance my cartridges clearly fell into two camps "warm" and "sweet" - the latter is a camp of one with only the Sony XL-MC104, which has a lovely clarity / sweetness in the highs... very appealing on some recordings. It sounds nothing like the Benz/Empire MC1 - which has a similar low/mid warmth as do the MM's.
Here are some of my notes from listening tests a few weeks back on those cartridges.... shortly after starting these tests my ADC blew.... my current testing and calibration is part of my process of setting up the new ADC / Phono Stage before I can listen again... the listening tests also compared a Toshiba SR-Q630 to my Revox Linatrak
Shure 1000e (with Jico Replacement N99e eliptical)
T1: very very similar to SAS, marginally more mid-highs perhaps - seems less ""pure"" than SAS, loses just a touch of the detail . Lows seemed a bit less detailed too.
T2: loses some of the Timbre of the instruments over the SAS, More timbre and woodiness than MC1, or Sony
T3: More detailed than MC1?
T5: keeps orchestra instruments more distinct than most in loud passages
Shure 1000e with N97xE SAS stylus (Damper up) (listening tests incomplete)
Track 1: equal or greater bass/mids to the MC1, but with more detailed, fwd high end - seems like there is more there.
Track 2: slightly sweeter than the 320U - more air?
Ortofon 320u
Track 1:Pleasant, Neutral, detailed - very similar to Shure and TM20, not quite as airy as shure, definitely more there than the MC1, a touch sweeter too (maybe?)
Track 2: mid highs slightly more prominent, lacks the richness of the 1000E-SAS in the low-mids. Very nice not tiring at all, detailed, sweet, Hs more of the timbre than the ShureN99, TM20, MC1, Sony - revox 1.55g shows signs of mistracking on peaks... - INVESTIGATE, VTF error?
Track 3: proper balance is present lows mids are there - timbre is not reproduced as well as 1000E-SAS - Highs are more bell like, tinkly than 1000E-SAS... but less real? Slightly ear tiring.
Ortofon TM20
Track 1: Pleasant, Neutral, detailed
Track 2: - no flaws, but nothing WOW either - more woody bloom to the strings (body timbre) compared to MC1 or Sony. Drawing out slightly more detail than MC1
Track 3: as per 2 - tendency to tiring?
T4:
T5: Some break up on complex - big passages
Empire MC1HO
Track 1:More midrange, lacks the sweetness of the Sony - feel like its missing out on some of the high sweet harmonics, Midrange more fwd, highs more recessed - Still a sweet recording - less ""obvious"", Midrange-lows and lows seem better than XL-MC104
Track 2: feels very neutral - actually a nice sound - middle of the road, neutral. (missing harmonics & tombre compared to SAS)
Track 3: Neutral - bottom end feels too lightweight - slightly tiring to the ear? - slightly less tiring to the ear - perhaps due to lack of detail..
Track 4: Sound more woodwind than with the Sony - a hint of Nasal tone?
T5: Keeps instruments distinct in complex large orchestra movements - especially the lows - good performance - more sensitive to scratches etc - cause it to skip where SAS does not
Shure 1000e with N97xE SAS Stylus (with damper brush down)
Track 1: More midrange/body than sony - very clear, detailed yet natural - smooth, richer than sony, mellow
Track 2: smoother than TM20 low mids are full rich, mellow (Nice) - slightly sweeter than 320U, more air? Overtones, Timbre (harmonics?) clearer- more real than MC1 - More body in mid bass strings (body sound more evident/clearer)
Track 3: Mids/lows are present and full - timbre is excellent - sounds very real - almost too much some of the percussion is possibly tiring (mistracking?)
Track 4: Wood timbre is clear
T5: 1.5g VTF version seperates instruments better than 2g....
Sony Xl-MC104
Track 1: Clear, bell like tones on 1st track sweet tones, very relaxed - natural sound- I like it - seems to have more air to the highs, loses some of the weight of the lower registers - piano is lighter than it should be.
Track 2: possibly a smidge more air around the flute - loses some of the weight and timbre of the instruments in the bass/low mids - Tiring to the ear longer term? - possible mistracking distortion causing tiring? - On revox not tiring. very good, still missing some of the wood body from the SAS
Track 3: Piano sounding glassy missing midrange and bass weight... tinkly - Piano is light weight... Tiring to the ear (Mistracking?-Tosh)
Track 4: Good sound can hear wood timbre - souding better on Revox
T5: keeps the instruments clearly distinct even in complex loud passages - very nice!
Keep in mind that I am returning to Vinyl after a 14 year hiatus... so I am learning and re-learning stuff as I go.
My Notes above were made before I level matched all the recordings (everything was recorded at 24/96, then pulled into a multi track session and perfectly time matched, so I can A/B between them, and switch to any of the cartridges at any time.... mostly I listen to a whole track at a time, but when a detail attracts my attention, I can switch to the same track & time on a different cartridge with a couple of mouse clicks)
Once level matched I initially thought they all sounded the same (!) - More careful listening over the next few days showed that all my comments were still applicable, but far far less obvious.
Once I get the Software RIAA in place and working properly, along with the right Loading for each cartridge (which will take a while as I won't have the Low C cables for at least another week or 2) I plan to redo the above exercise this time with an without individual cartridge EQ using Pink Noise....
Given the vagaries/imperfections of mechanical reproduction, I strongly believe that the differences I can hear will once more drop another order of magnitude once the cartridges are EQ'd for frequency response - and individually loaded for best F/R and minimal EQ (ie first adjust loading, to best optimise F/R - which will minimise the amount of EQ required, and the inherent distortions added by a layer of processing). But I won't know until I get there.
We are today at a stage in technological progress, where any cartridge should be able to be used with (adjusted to) a flat frequency response.... This combined with RoomEQ should (theoretically) put us a lot closer to the original Master Tape.... (I hesitate to say the original performance, as many recordings are not a performance in a live venue but a studio session or/and a fully artificial construct...)
In terms of value, I think that the vintage top end MM's are Huge value, and with an appropriate new top end stylus (preferably Shibata or other LC) on a good cantilever - such as SAS can provide performance competing with top end MC's at prices that are one or more orders of magnitude lower.
A Shure M97 with SAS can be set up for well under $200... or an Empire 2000/4000 with Shibata, AT11/12/similar with Shibata... etc...
The Ortofon 320u is p-mount (with 1/2" adapter if needed) and has a LC tip, not the most sophisticated cantilever - but I picked it up new for $40 !!!
I also wonder whether once properly adjusted and EQ'd - the lighter VTF / Higher Compliance and Higher trackability of the 80's cartridges will allow them to outperform some of the TOTL MC's in the megabuck range? (especially on the ULM Revox Arm....4g - but also on the servo damped JVC QL-Y5F... once I get it up and working)- I don't own or have access to TOTL MC gear in any case, so the question will remain academic for the foreseeable future. (the MC1HO I own was at the low end of the Benz/Empire MC range in the early 90's.... the Sony XL-MC104 was TOTL in the early 80's.... both are fine elipticals, and good cartridges, but I don't believe them to be competitive with the current SOTA)