$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path

A couple of people have written to me privately about the current thread. In one message, a concern was voiced about the Moerch not be suitable with the ZYX. I wrote back explaining that the Moerch would be a great match, at least in theory, because I have not tried the combination. Here is what I wrote:

There's probably no misunderstanding at all! Moerch tonearms are great, and not only that, have a wonderful aesthetic appeal, which I find nearly irresistible. And with their interchangeable arm wands, they make a brilliant choice for many analog front ends.

If I were to choose the Michelle Gyro SE or Eurolab turntable, my choice of tonearm would be the Moerch DP-6. With the Teres 245, the Origin Live Encounter may have a slight advantage in creating the best synergy. The emphasis here is "slight." Moreover, there was a discussion in the thread regarding the effects of continuous versus non-continuous tonearm cabling, with the idea that continuous cabling may be preferable in many situations. While I grasp the significance of this assertion, my counter idea is that for some of us, myself included, we may not be able to detect any difference, at least at first. But there are a number of audiophiles who have listened very deeply into the quality of their systems over a long period of time. These people are not casual listeners, and have developed a considerable intimacy and knowledge of all the components in their setup in the same way that some of us have come to know the deepest aspects of ourselves. This knowing is a process that takes time and experience. Under these circumstances, I believe, it does become possible to distinguish the type of cable used, continuous versus non-continuous, and to form a definite preference for the former. I believe I will become one of these audiophiles because it is not uncommon for me to spend hours at a time listening to each and every note of a piano sonata or the ebb and flow of the melodious intermixing of instruments that make up many of the symphonies of the Classical Period.

Under $2,000, there are only a few tonearms that really look and sound great. The Moerch is certainly one of them. In my situation, I am trying to maximize price performance, not only for reasons of cost, but because of my own minimalist outlook toward life. Someone else might have a much different approach to vinyl and tonearms, in which case the Moerch would be the ideal solution. After all Paul Seydor and Robert Green of TAS loved the Moerch when it was paired with the Eurolab.

Dougdeacon,

You are always welcome at any time! October is a good month in Tracy. It will be ninety degrees today, but it's a dry heat! And while you're here, don't forget to visit the Livermore Valley wineries, if you're into wine. It's fun and not too expensive. Then there's Yosemite and Carmel, although these two destinations are not exactly a stone's throw away! (I sound like an ad in a travel magazine.)

I will let you know when everything arrives. The biggest hang-up now is the money. I have two thousand saved, and more is on the way, but my calculations indicate I will need three thousand more, plus money for the phono stage. Man, this in one expensive hobby! : > (

Not only will I have to be careful about setting up the bearing assembly for the Teres, there is also the finishing phase. While I know the Teres web site claims only a couple of hours are needed, I think this estimate is a little unrealistic. It make take the Teres craftsmen (craftswomen) only a couple of hours, but for someone like myself, it will take longer, maybe a couple of days. When I get the turntable, I will recount my entire experience here, along with any tips about finishing and detailing.

By the way, I recalculated the resonance frequency of the ZYX R-100FS for the OL Encounter and found it to be 10.5 Hz, which is nearly ideal according to Van den Hull.

While I am waiting for the Teres turntable, I will be doing two things: 1) buying more vinyl and 2) attempting to design and build an isolation platform for the Teres. This project will hone my wood finishing skills.

As you are probably aware, commercially available isolation platforms can be quite expensive. I have seen one or two that cost more than a thousand. I think that I can build one for a lot less, maybe only a couple of hundred. Why so much? Well, I plan to use two layers of laminated hardwood, which is not cheap, and I will need to either buy or rent some furniture clamps. After the wood has been cut to shape, I will need to figure out what damping material to use between the hardwood layers. Some have suggested Bubble Wrap to create a poor man's air bladder. While this is an intriguing idea, there are two issues with this approach: 1) it will be somewhat difficult to level the Bubble Wrap because it is not perfectly flat; 2) the Bubble Wrap may deteriorate, or breakdown, over time. My solution is to use sand, and to place the two hardwood layers in a pre-made hardwood box that will accommodate the two layers. Sand is very cheap, easy to use, and will not breakdown. As far as I know, it's a great sound-absorbing material and is easy to level. The only problem I can see is how to keep it perfectly sealed between the various hardwood layers. Maybe I could use some high-quality clear caulking that carries a 20-year warranty as a sealant? I will post more on this later.

For those of you who already have a turntable, you might try what I am visualizing:

1. A hardwood box could be used that has dovetail miter-box corners. It needs to be deep enough and large enough to accommodate the two layers of the "floating hardwood" upon which the turntable will be placed. Naturally the top portion of the box will be open. Only the bottom and sides need to be constructed.

2. Sand could be placed on the bottom of the box, and the first hardwood layer placed and leveled on top of the sand. Caulking could then be applied to seal the sand. We don't want that material getting into the turntable bearing assembly.

3. More sand could be place on top of the first hardwood layer, followed by the second hardwood layer and caulking.

4. The bottom of the box can be equipped with high-quality metal cones, preferably brass. Underneath the cones one could place pucks from Black Diamond Racing.

Obviously I have not worked out all the details, but if anyone has comments they would like to make, please share them.

Hmmm, maybe I'll visit CA and borrow your scissors and soldering iron. We could always test on the Encounter! ;-)

Please do let us know when everything arrives and you've got it spinning. Take care with the Teres bearing assembly BTW. That's about the only step where it's easy to do damage to the TT. Once it's together it's about as set-and-forget as a TT can be.

It might be a good idea if I provide the source of the information regarding the effective mass of the tonearm to be used with the Grado cartridge that I have mentioned in this thread. The information came from a question that I had asked on the Vinyl Asylum about the compatibility of using the Grado Statement Master with an Audio Quest tonearm. This was one of the responses I received:

In Reply to: Grado Statement Master with Audio Quest PT-9 Extreme Tonearm posted by Artar1 on August 17, 2004 at 20:21:45:

The Master requires an arm having 12-16g effective mass. This was told to me by both John Grado (in person) and their head designer (phone). I have my Master on a Moerch UP-4 arm with the heavy armtube, which is an excellent mate for the Grado. You should ascertain the effective mass of the Audio Quest arm.

Please keep in mind that I did not call Grado to verify.

Hi Dougdeacon,

Thanks for the compliment, but you must really thank Van den Hull for making this information available to all of us. All I did was to push some keys on a calculator. : >)

I agree that my calculated values will vary to some degree in practice. Anyone contemplating the OL Encounter tonearm and one of the cartridges mentioned will need to do their own fact checking. Also other factors have to be taken into consideration, some of which have been discussed in this thread, including tonearm construction, quality of materials used, and tonearm bearing type and assembly.

Even though the Grado appears to be a "marginal" match with the OL Encounter, some have said that the Grado does better with a tonearm with a higher effective mass than what is actually recommended by Grado. It seems that a 13-to-14gm tonearm works better than a lighter one, especially if mistracking it to be avoided. One individual in particular uses the heaviest arm tube offered by Moerch in his setup. So the numbers alone don't always tell the complete story. But in the case of the Music Maker III, it appears that the OL Encounter would not be the best combination. This idea has already been tested in practice.

Dougdeacon, how did you guess which tonearm I would be starting with? Yes, I have made my decision, and it will be exactly what Twl recommended in the second message of this thread: Teres 245/OL Encounter/Shelter 501. I will say more about this selection in another post and provide my rationale if that would be of interest.

In posting the compliance figures for each cartridge, it did occur to me that cartridge manufacturers may use different ways to measure compliance. With ZYX, two figures were given, one for vertical resonance and one for lateral resonance. I guess it's the vertical, rather than the lateral, that's more important in regards to footfalls and record warp?

For me, the continuous versus non-continuous tonearm cable debate is now a low priority, now that I will be choosing a tonearm with a continuous cable. Moreover, from the tonearms you have listed, they are in another league from what I can afford. My choice is between the Moerch DP-6 and the OL Encounter, with the OL winning out. Besides, I don't think my hearing is good enough to tell the difference between a tonearm with a continuous wire and one that has a non-continuous cable, with all other factors being equal.

I will try to leave the scissors and soldering iron at home should I find myself in CT. Besides those items are no longer allowed as carry-on items with the airlines. : > )

Funny you should ask about a recording cleaning device. That was the first thing I bought along with a truckload of cleaning material. Thanks to 4yanx (maybe you have heard of him!?), the records I do own now look new! This time around I went about analog "ass-backwards" so to speak. When I was younger, I didn't have the proper cleaning tools, which explains to some degree how it was possible for fungus and mold to damage my vinyl.

While it is true that I am investing a lot of energy into vinyl, I will continue to listen to CDs. My player is a very good one and is emotionally satisfying. However, vinyl is more of a passion and a hobby, whereas CDs are more of a convenience pleasure, like watching TV.

Viggen,

If my numbers are correct, then the Dynavector 17D2 should work with the OL Encounter. But before you run out any buy the cartridge, you might want to ask others if they have tried the combination. On the other hand, the Dynavector line is featured on the OL web site so it's my guess that the combination will work.

Hi Atar1: " that sure works for me ". The electronics issue it is not a matter of taste.
I can see that, with all your 30 experience years, you can't understand both issues: SS electronics and bi-amp amp. The problem, for you, is that you don't want to learn. You say: " ...it's a solved problem as far as my system...", dear Artar1: you are very far from a solved problem, but I know that you can live with it and you can share your problems with other people that likes to live in the mistake: this way of life is the easiest one in audio world, good for you and bad for the music.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Nice work. Those calculated values will vary slightly in reality, though probably not enough to matter. It's useful to actually see how a cartridge like a Grado or Music Maker would put you slightly below the ideal range. Obviously most of the other carts would work on the Encounter, though I guess we know which one you're starting with! I predict much musical happiness.

FYI, that ZYX compliance figure of 15 x10-6cm/dyne is for the lateral mode only. For vertical resonance the compliance is slightly lower, 12 x10-6cm/dyne, so it would resonate at a slightly higher frequency. This provides better isolation from primarily vertical vibrations like warps, footfalls, etc.

You didn’t respond about the sonic degradation that one might expect with detachable arm tubes. Perhaps the loss of fidelity would be small for most people, but for those who have considerable experience, it could be a small problem with top quality, low-output MCs.

The only good arm I've heard with a non-continuous cable run is the Graham 2.2. I think the Schroeder Reference, TriPlanar and Basis Vector all better it, but since these arms differ in many other materials and design respects it's impossible to say how much the single run of wire matters. You'd have to compare identical arms with a single run and a broken one. You're welcome to listen to a TriPlanar any time you're in CT, but please don't approach it with scissors and a soldering iron! ;-)

Enjoy your new rig (I know you will). I predict your CDP will be gathering dust. Don't forget to look into record cleaning. You'll need a machine. More money. :-(

Funny, I am thinking about getting the Encounter too. Got the 301 which I prefer over the 501 in my very very modest system. I want even more "air" thus really want to try the Dyna 17D2 but taking it one step at a time...

I have now made up my mind as to what turntable, tonearm, and cartridge I intend to buy. Any predictions? The answer can be found in a single recommendation that was posted here in this thread.

Before I divulge the answer, however, I would like to provide some data I have collected about some of the popular cartridges that have been discussed in this thread. This data includes cartridge mass and compliance as well as the mass of one tonearm that was discussed here, the Origin Live Encounter (effective mass = 14gm). I have also taken the liberty to calculate the optimal cartridge/arm system resonance frequency from the data supplied by Van den Hul in Appendix 2 of his online question-and-answer treatise about phono cartridges. (Incidentally, I got the web site information from, you guessed it, Twl.) Here is the URL: http://www.vandenhul.com/artpap/phono_faq.htm#a2.

According to Van den Hul, when we match a phono cartridge to a tonearm, it is important to achieve a cartridge/tonearm system resonance frequency between 8 and 12 Hz, with 10Hz being ideal. If the resonance frequency is too low, the tonearm/cartridge may be excited by record warps creating audible distortion and mistracking. If the resonance is too high, the tonearm/cartridge may be excited by bass frequencies in the record grooves. Thus, we should select a cartridge with the proper mass and compliance that matches our tonearm, or to select a tonearm with the correct effective mass that matches our cartridge, to maintain a cartridge/tonearm system resonance frequency between 8 to 12 Hz.

Here's the data:

Cartridge Mass

Shelter 501: 8.0gm
Grado Statement Master: 6.5gm
Grado Statement Reference: 6.5gm
Music Maker III:6.2gm
Denon DL103R: 8.5gm
AT OC9: 8.0gm
Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood: 6.0gm
Dynavector 17D2: 5.3gm
ZYX R-100FS: 5.0gm
Sumiko Black Bird: 9.6gm
Benz Micro L2: 9.0gm

------------------------------------

Compliance

Shelter 501: 9 x10-6cm/dyne
Grado Statement Master: 20 x10-6cm/dyne
Grado Statement Reference: 20 x10-6cm/dyne
Music Maker III: 30 x10-6cm/dyne
Denon DL103R: 5 x10-6cm/dyne
AT OC9: 9 x10-6cm/dyne
Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood: 15 x10-6cm/dyne
Dynavector 17D2: 15 x10-6cm/dyne
ZYX R-100FS: 15 x10-6cm/dyne
Sumiko Black Bird: 12 x10-6cm/dyne
Benz Micro L2: 15 x10-6cm/dyne

--------------------------------

Resonance Frequency

Shelter 501/OL Encounter: 11.3Hz
Grado Master/OL Encounter: 7.9Hz
Grado Reference/OL Encounter: 7.9Hz
Music Maker III/OL Encounter: 6.5Hz
Denon DL103R/OL Encounter: 15Hz
AT OC9/OL Encounter: 11.3Hz
Virtuoso/OL Encounter: 9.2Hz
Dynavector 17D2/OL Encounter: 9.4Hz
ZYX R-100FS/OL Encounter: 9.4Hz
Black Bird/OL Encounter: 9.5Hz
Benz Micro L2/OL Encounter: 8.6Hz

Hey Dougdeacon,

Thanks for responding.

It might have been very silly of me to ask you about the loading question. I should have known you must have tried every conceivable resistance, and then some.

The Shelter 901 is now off my upgrade list. If it sounds bright in your system, can you imagine what it would sound like with my Ascents, like perhaps breaking glass or fingernails being drug across a blackboard? These could be the horrors of brightness awaiting me with that cartridge.

You didn’t respond about the sonic degradation that one might expect with detachable arm tubes. Perhaps the loss of fidelity would be small for most people, but for those who have considerable experience, it could be a small problem with top quality, low-output MCs.

Twl,

As always, you have provided useful and sage comments about the tubes versus solid state issue. For me, the issue is closed and it's a solved problem as far as my system is concerned. What's more, I agree with you about the choice between the two as being a matter of personal taste. That sure works for me.

If the Shelter 901 sounds over the top in your system, how do you think it would sound in mine? I will have to pass on this cartridge. Did different loadings have any effect? Did you try a lower resistance setting to try to soften the top end?

Yes, I've tried quite fine impedance adjustments. Our stepup tranniess have resistor terminals built in, so I can change cartridge loading in a few seconds to any value I choose. With the 901 we tried values from 19 ohms to 50 before settling on 38. This was with a HIFI modded OL Silver. When we changed arms the optimal load for the 901 changed to 37.5 ohms, no doubt due a slight difference in arm cables.

For the ZYX Airy, I started at 10 ohms, because this gives a similar ratio of impedance load to internal cartridge impedance as 38 ohms does for a Shelter 901. This seems to be pretty nearly ideal in our system.

The slight brightness or etched-ness of the 901 cannot be tamed by loading it down, unless you suppress the highs altogether I suppose. We heard it through Cello's Supratek Cortese at 500, 100 and 50 ohms. It's audible in my very different system at any listenable load. As Soliver says, it's just in the nature of the cartridge. It's a kind of ringing or resonance that causes the 901 to slightly over-emphasise detail and surface noise, and throws everything to the front. The ZYX lets truly quiet passages play as soft as a mouse. The 901 doesn't know how to do that.

Artar1: It is a heavy drawback to blend differents amps in a bi-amp system, even if its are from the same manufacturer.
Be carefully on this subject.
Raul.

Raoul, you need an audio buddy in Mexico. I did refer you to Club Prestige to get a *girlfriend* but you seem to ignore my suggestion. Too bad. I wish I could go to Club Prestige. I would even buy you a lap dance! Tubes or solid state?

Remember the solid state has *silicon*...

Dear Artar1: I'm sorry for my comment on blend electronics ( Pass amps ? ). I know that this was not the topic.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Moreover, it has been my experience that when passive preamps have been used (or no preamp at all) and the most simple, but elegant solid state circuits have been employed, the sound that has resulted has been the most amusical I have ever heard in my 30-plus years in audio.

...to leave the "glowing bottles" behind to embrace the cold, unvarnished realty of solid state.

The Psychic says,

High end is who you are, not what you buy.

My system is passive preamp based, 100% solid state and it's incredibly musical, even without using my classic Marantz Esotec monoblocks. I use a direct drive TT and a belt drive CD transport--both heavily modded. This system is designed to run off a single 30 amp, 220V dedicated line feeding 220V/110V stepdown isolation transformer/filters. Sorry, but reality had to step in.

With psychic power and primal intensity,

Dear Twl: I respect your 30+ years of audio experience.
Lowther and SS are not the best blend. When was the last time that you test SS electronics in your system " were carefully matched and optimized " ? Which was that audio system ?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Dear Artar1: I agree with your first part of your answer, and I agree, too, that any signal that is transmitted, no matter how is amplified: the signal is changed. What I'm, saying is that we have to take care for that that signal suffer the less degradation: that's all.
I respect your 30-plus years in audio and if you like to start to live in the mistake: it's ok.
Perhaps you, like many others audiophiles, don't want to continue growing up. I understand: it is a hard task.
No, I don't have any agenda, I only give an answer to Rushton. Don't be angry for that.
I read that you want to bi-amp your ML speakers ( I know very well this ML model ) with SS and tubes electronics, maybe your common sense tell that you can do it ( btw, you can do it ), but this blend will be a big mistake. Why don't use Levinson electronics ?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Regarding the SS vs Tubes debate, this is a never ending argument. There are pros and cons to each technology, and ultimately it depends on individual preference.

I happen to prefer the(apparently horrific combination) of Single-Ended Triode ZOTL in my system, and it absolutely destroys(musically) any SS amp that I have ever heard in my 30+ years of audio experience. And all my SS systems were carefully matched and optimized, just as I do with my tube systems.

Technically, for every argument made against tubes, there is an equally valid argument that can be made against SS. It is nothing more than a "pissing contest", and is best not engaged in, unless you just want aggravation.

I don't have any experience at all with the Shelter 301, and I don't even know anyone who does. Judging from the performance of the other Shelter cartridges, I'd expect it to be a good performer, but I cannot verify that.

Hiowl,

You might want to ask Twl about the Shelter 301.

Raul,

Have you considered starting a new thread in the amp/preamp section of Audiogon where you might debate amplifier design?

Yes, the signal originating from the source, whether it’s from LP/CD/SACD/DVD-A/cassette/real-to-real tape/etc., is compromised by the components downstream, a loss of fidelity as it were, regardless of whether those components are tubed or solid state. Not only that, the source itself is a compromise, and hence a loss of fidelity compared to the original musical event. And if you take this argument still further, the event itself, if it is amplified music, also suffers a loss of fidelity compared to what could be achieved with acoustical instruments played by inspired, talented musicians in an “ideal” environment, whatever that might be. However, among those who cherish unamplified music, you will not get universal agreement as to which opera house, symphony hall, or recital room will do proper justice to the sound. There is, I’m afraid, an inherent relativity to the quality of music reproduction, not only at the live event itself, but also in the recording process, as well as in the playback equipment – tube or solid state. No matter at which point one chooses to examine the music making process, whether that includes the original creation of the musical score, the interpretation of that score, the recording process used to capture it using either analog or digital means, or the playback equipment in the studio or in the home, everything listed here is open to opinion, interpretation, judgment, preference, bias, and so forth. All of these issues have been thoroughly examined over the past 30 years, and as yet, to my knowledge, no “absolute sound” has emerged, Harry Person notwithstanding.

While it may be admirable to minimize sonic degradation and loss of fidelity in our home playback systems – tubed or solid state – a more practical ambition might be to please ourselves rather than remaining doggedly faithful to the “straight-wire-with-gain” axiom, which usually favors transistors over tubes. No matter how good one’s home system might be, no matter how perfect the room, the music reproduced there is, at best, a facsimile of the original, a facsimile, if one is flexible enough, that could be open to interpretation and modification if one pleases. Why not? Interpretation and experimentation are artistic expressions that give the audiophile the ability to mold the original event, whatever that might have been, into a form that simply pleases him or her. It might not please others, and it might not even please the creator of the original performance, but that is what art is all about, is it not? Art is the process of personal expression, interpretation, and experimentation that may very well lead to something new and exciting. This process is what makes being an audiophile rewarding, stimulating, and personally gratifying. However, when preconceived ideas are applied (e.g., tubes degrade sound), when theory becomes the goal rather than the process, the enjoyment of home audio, in whatever form it may take, is inherently diminished, along with the motivation to pursue it.

>>When we use tube electronics always do a heavy degradation , let see why: when the signal goes through any tube the tube adds harmonics that does not exist in the signal and the problem is not only the degradation of the signal but that that harmonics are at hearing levels, so in this stage the tube electronics works like a " signal generator ".<<

I will submit to you that no matter how a signal is transmitted, no matter how it is amplified, whether tubes, MOSFETS, bipolar circuits, JFETS, and so forth are used, the signal is changed, and the devices being used, whether they are tube or solid state, add their own signature to the sound, which cannot be measured with current means. Moreover, it has been my experience that when passive preamps have been used (or no preamp at all) and the most simple, but elegant solid state circuits have been employed, the sound that has resulted has been the most amusical I have ever heard in my 30-plus years in audio. Furthermore, some of the best performances I have every witnessed, ones that conveyed the emotion and soul of the music in ways that were utterly captivating, have been accomplished quite easily with tubed gear. Interesting, isn’t it?

>>I'm not against tubes, I'm only in favor of music.<<

If that’s true, then why are you posting your views in favor of solid state reproduction in a thread dealing with turntables, tonearms, and phono cartridges? I think maybe you have an agenda that does not correspond with the topic under discussion? You have told us to think about tubes in relationship with the love of music, and we already have. As a music lover, I now ask you to examine your reasons for posting here, off topic, and your efforts in trying to convert some of us, or all of us, to leave the "glowing bottles" behind to embrace the cold, unvarnished realty of solid state.

Dear Rushton: First: this are not only a tesis, this are probed facts.
Second: why you disagree?.
Third: do you already try it?, how much time?, the SS electronics were set up according your audio system and room? do you take care about?.
" Sorry, we will continue to disagree....", with out answer the " second and third issues ", it not only have not a great value but does not help to any one in this forum, at least to the people ( like me ) that want to learn and that cares about music.
Share your experiences about it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Has anyone had experience with the new Shelter 301?

Soliver & Twl,

I will post in a little while. My daughter wants the Internet and we are fighting over the computer. :>(

So I will go listen to some music and tune back in later.

Artar1

Sorry, Raul. We've been through this before and we will continue to disagree, no matter in what absolutist terms you continue to state your thesis.
.

Dear Rushton: " Raul considers tube... equalizers ".
First I don't consider, this is a fact: the tube electronics function like equalizers, probed by the phisics laws.
Let me explain the whole thing ( this is only for the people that cares about the music: music lovers ): when any one of us receive and LP/CD/SACD/DVD-A the " signal " that come inside these devices comes heavy degraded from the original ( microphones, cables mixers, consoles,editing,cut,... ), so what to do at our home reproduction audio systems?: to try to degraded the less, the analog chain for the music reproduction is a long one: cartridge, headshell wires, internal tonearm wire, tonearm, phono cable, phono stage, line preamp, more cables, amplifier, loudspeakers, more cables and conectors, room, know how, etc......, in all these links the signal is degraded ( it does not matter what we do )again and again, so what we are hearing : a very very heavy degraded signal. As I told you at the beguining of this post: the best that we can do is to try to degraded the less in every step in this long and very sensible analog music reproduction.
When we use tube electronics always do a heavy degradation , let see why: when the signal goes through any tube the tube adds harmonics that does not exist in the signal and the problem is not only the degradation of the signal but that that harmonics are at hearing levels, so in this stage the tube electronics works like a " signal generator ". Now, all the tubes change the frecuency response of the signal that goes through an speaker because that frecuency response changes with the changes in the impedance frecuency of the speaker, so the tube is equalizing the signal reproduction.
There are other problems with the tube electronics: the signal has to pass for many many metres of wire in their transformers that works like filters and represent another heavy degradation of our beloved signal ( yes I know that exist the OTL version of this amplifiers, well the problem with this OTL are worst ).
So, the tube electronics by music reproduction is the wrong way: heavy, heavy, heavy signal degradation.
All these things and many more are happen with the tube electronics music reproduction ( here it is not a matter of if I like the sound reproduction of the tubes or I don't like it: it is a matter of take care about that beloved signal and cvares about music )

All of you are taking heavy care about: uninterrupted wires, VTA/SRA, resonance frecuency in toneram/cartridge, turntables, cables, cartridges, phono stage, LP, etc....,
for what? if all these care time consuming work will be heavy degraded: think about it. I think that sooner or latter you have to care about it.
I'm not against tubes, I'm only in favor of music. In the past I had tubes too and I learn what happen with them and what happen with SS electronics. When I change from tubes to SS I really was dissapointed, till understand that I have to work heavy in my new audio system for to have a decent sound: change the speaker position, speaker cables, and some other things that was wrong in my audio system and that I never knew because the tubes has not the resolution for I can " see it ". Yes, we have to have patience when we change from tubes to SS electronics, but if you do well and with the same care that you already have for your tubes, then you always win because you will be nearest to the : MUSIC.
Regards and always enjoy the music.
Raul.

I think that the 501 is the way to go for the short term(or even long term). The 501 has a "magic" to it that the 901 doesn't possess, and while the 901 has more detail, the 501 excells in just making great sounding music at a lower price. I've know a couple of people who moved from the 501 to the 901, and yearned for the magic that was in the 501, and was missing in the 901, even though the 901 was noticeably more detailed. I find the 501 to be very Koetsu-like, and I like that. The 501 is no slouch in any department, but it is not the "pinnacle" either. It strikes a very good balance of detail, magic, musicality, and price. I think that unless you have a "super-arm" the 501 is as good as anyone will ever need. Many people have previously considered this cartridge to be very near the top of the last few years crop of cartridges, and that isn't bad, considering its price. If high-value is a consideration, the 501 has to be among the top choices, if not the very top choice. The DL103R at $239 is probably my choice as the very best cartridge for the money, as it approaches the 501 in performance for about 1/3 the cost. Dollar for dollar, you can get more with the DL103R than any other cartidge that I know of. It will flat embarrass alot of much more expensive cartridges. And at $239, you can afford to play your records alot, without even considering stylus wear. It has alot going for it, but it needs a very good arm, with high effective mass, or a HiFi mod.

You know, regarding the OL Silver, I wasn't overly impressed with the appearance either, and it looked very plain. But with a DL103R on it, and a HiFi mod, we were looking at a very good performing package that cost less than most decent arms alone. When I got mine, the OL Silver was only $740, and the DL103R was only $210. The HiFi mod was just pennies. For under $1k, this setup was pulling very close to some very expensive stuff. That meant alot to me, because I can't afford $3k tonearms, and $2k cartridges. Believe me, when I set that stylus down in the record and started to listen, I forgot all about how it looked, or how little it cost(except that I kept smiling about how great it was for so little money). No, it is not the ultimate, but on the "diminishing returns" scale, it is totally out of proportion. It plays very very close to the "big league", for entry level dollars. And with the Shelter 501 in it, it is actually in the "big league" although not at the very top. If performance for the money is important to you, this needs to be considered as a possibility.

And, as Dougdeacon so accurately posted a while back, the HiFi-modded OL Silver could quite possibly be the best tonearm in the world for "leading-edge dynamics". If you look at any "big league" tonearm, they only top the list in one category, or maybe two, at most. There is a "leader" for midrange liquidity, and a leader for bass response, and a leader for etched detail, etc, etc. Any tonearm that leads the pack in any one category, must be considered in the "big leagues" of tonearms. You won't find any other "category leaders" at the price of an OL Silver with a HiFi mod.

For the money spent on a HiFi modded OL Silver, and a DL103R or Shelter 501, you will be painfully close to the top of the heap, for a whole lot less money, and it would be a great sounding package for anyone beginning in this hobby, as well as any very experienced person. Heck, I'm considered pretty experienced in analog, and I run a HiFi modded OL Silver and a Shelter 501 on my Teres 245. And I'll put it up against anything, anytime. Maybe it won't win all the time, but it will be real close at way less money. And it makes me happy with the sound.

I feel the same way about the Shelter 901 cart whenever I have heard it either at my house or at my dealer's. The highs are a bit ragged. Listening to stuff like the Dixie Chick's Natalie Maine's voice is quite fatiguing. So yeah, I would definately say the cart leans towards brightness.

Dougdeacon,

Let me say that your postings have helped me a lot. And also let me say that I apologize if my last post to you sounded like a district attorney in a cross examination. That was never my intention.

My interest in the Moerch began with the review done by Paul Seydor for TAS, and has continued with the many favorable reviews it has received in the Vinyl Asylum. Nevertheless, the Shroeder, Graham, Triplanar, and SME arms have all been received with even more enthusiasm because they represent the state of the art for that sytle of arm. The Moerch is one step below the best offerings from these companies. I think many would acknowledge that. At the same time, however, it is cheaper while still delivering very good performance, interchangeable arm wands, and good looks. But the Triplanar is a handsome and high-performing arm indeed, maybe one of the best.

In an earlier post, you mentioned that an uninterrupted tonearm cable would provide the best fidelity. That may be true. I was curious how much fidelity loss would we hear? Or maybe it would be something that would completely escape my attention?

Of course I was kidding about not telling you about buying the Shelter 501. : >) I am sure that you won’t be troubled by what my final decision will be.

I must admit it’s downright frustrating that an expensive tonearm is limited to a few desirable phono cartridges. The OL Encounter will work great with the Shelter, Denon, and Koetsu, but not so well with the ZYX. Ahhhhhhhhhh! : > (

My floor is a heavily padded, wall-to-wall carpet over four inches of rebar-reinforced concrete on top of earth. The floor is very stable and solid. My rack is steel and glass and is quite sturdy and heavy. The turntable would be placed upon a double-decker, laminated hardwood base in which sand would be the damping material between the two hardwood boards. The turntable will not be placed between my speakers, but the room will have two self-powered subwoofers. (I gotta get the bottom octave you know!?)

So I either decide up front what cartridge I want to buy and just live with it, or I buy something like the Moerch, which may have a small limitation with its cabling, and then enjoy the possibility of using the arm with a wider range of cartridges.

I would not call the ZYX flawed in anyway, and I am sure Dudley never intended to say that, nor did I read that interpretation. Seemingly, he preferred a cartridge that had more texture, nuance, and layering I believe. He felt that the ZYX very accurately reproduced what was on the record surface with steady neutrality while minimizing surface noise, a very big plus, and while providing excellent tracking. And what’s wrong with that I ask? So it seems that the "house sound" for ZYX is no sound at all while providing a quite ride and very good tracking. I would not call that flawed.

As for Fremer, well he likes a lot more excitement than me. I still get a kick out of Perry Como. (Wait a minute; the nurse is coming with my medication and my light gray Cardigan. Now that’s better.) Who knows how he set up the ZYX or whether his tonearm was a good match. I know he uses a very expensive Simon York with a Graham 2.2 arm.

Dudley also has a fairly tricked-out Linn turntable, if that matters. But let’s face it: the Linn is not better than a Teres 265 with a Triplanar VII! No indeed!

And I guess we can discount whatever Sam Tellig says, right?

>>Despite his abrasive style, I trust Salvatore's ears…<<

I don’t know what to think of Salvatore. I feel he’s too dogmatic, rigid, and iconoclastic for me. Your advice and the advice given by Twl is much better balanced and more objective in a rational way.

>>The 901 does the opposite in a sense. It overshoots on leading edges, which slightly etches the edges of everything and makes it all sound a touch over the top… Very exciting, very detailed, not at all warmish….<<

If the Shelter 901 sounds over the top in your system, how do you think it would sound in mine? I will have to pass on this cartridge. Did different loadings have any effect? Did you try a lower resistance setting to try to soften the top end?

>>I've only heard your ML's once, and that in a shop with a poor setup. Even worse, they were brand new and certainly not broken in. I'll trust your characterization of course. (BTW, do you hear a disconnect between the bass drivers and the midrange/treble. I thought I did but I was only there for a minute.) If the ML's are the slightest bit bright or edgy or tizzy, a Shelter 901 may emphasize that. A Koetsu will round it off a bit. A ZYX will play it pretty much straight down the middle, nothing emphasized but nothing hidden either.<<

The Martin Logans can have a transistorized, metallic, even bright sound if not set up correctly, broken in, or used with the right electronics. I have heard many different models over the years driven by Threshold, Audio Research, Krell, Classe Audio, Adcom, Premier, Spectral, Proceed, McIntosh, Sunfire, and Mark Levinson. Threshold sounded dry, sterile, and lifeless. Audio Research, not the Reference Series, had a steely quality in the upper midrange that gave me listening fatigue. Classe was lovely and sweet, but I got a headache after about 40 minutes. Spectral was even worse: I got a headache in only 20 minutes. Premier was well balanced but very bright, as was Adcom (big surprise). Proceed and Mark Levinson give a nicely warm, well balanced, rich, and nuanced presentation. I can listen to my Proceed AMP 5/Martin Logan Ascent combination for three or four hours with no fatigue whatsoever. The same is nearly true with the Sunfire, which has the most open, transparent, uncolored, and clear sound of any amplifier I have ever heard, but it could use a little more warmth and sweetness to give it a tad more soul. The McIntosh (MC402) was a real stinker. It was warm and overly rich, almost to the point of being diffuse. The bass had a billowing quality, the soundstage was deep but not very wide, and the highs were tipped up with a very rich additive glow that was most unnatural.

Little wonder that the best demos of ML speakers I have heard were with Mark Levinson and VTL.

In my system, I plan to add a tubed amp for the ESL panels and a solid state amp to drive the woofers. I plan to use a passive biamping arrangement with an attenuator affixed to the RCA inputs on the solid state amp to help balance its gain with that of the tubed unit.

As for any discontinuity between the woofers and panels, I have never really detected such a problem, but then the Martin Logan Ascent uses a single ten-inch, aluminum-coated driver with a robust magnet that creates a very quick, tight, and percussive bass. I never feel that the ELS panels are out of synch with the woofers. I only have about 18 months of experience with my speakers with an average listening time of about two hours a day, so there’s always the possibility that I might detect this discontinuity over time.

In your system, I would suspect that the ZYX would fit well with the B&W N803/C-J MF2500A/C-J PV-11 combination. (I Own a PV-14L, so I know a little about the Conrad-Johnson sound.) In this situation, a very steady neutrality would be in the best service of your system’s overall synergy.

I think I will go and watch a movie now. All this typing is making my arm hurt!

Thanks again!

Artar 1,

I haven't heard a Moerch so I can't speak about its sound, except to note that one possible limitation. Obviously Raul likes it and he's heard a lot of arms. It certainly finds its way onto a lot of high quality rigs. Ditto for the Shelter 501 BTW. It's okay with me if you buy one! :-)

The OL Encounter has an effective mass of 14g. Excellent for Shelter, Denon, Koetsu. Probably okay for ZYX though borderline. My arm has 11g effective mass and its a perfect match for a ZYX judging by resonance frequencies. (These can be easily measured with the HFN&RR test record.) An Encounter/ZYX would resonate near the bottom of the "ideal" 8-12 Hz range. What kind of floors and TT support will you have? The more stable the floor and support the less a slightly low resonance frequency is likely to matter.

Good that you're doing your research on the ZYX and other carts. Dudley's Airy review seemed more positive to me than your characterization. Remember how he kept saying things like, "Many of you will rush out right now"? The flaws or shortcomings he listed at the end were IMO precisely due to the weaknesses of the three rigs he tested it on. (He partly used a Rega P3 for pete's sake. That's beyond ridiculous.) This review and another one he did of the Galibier Quattro were discussed here recently at some length. Search and ye shall find!

I only vaguely remember Fremer's review. I vividly remember Arthur Salvatore's. Despite his abrasive style, I trust Salvatore's ears and skills more than Fremer's. When he describes something I've heard, I generally agree with his description. The only way one could be "underwhelmed" by the Airy2 is if it were poorly set up, poorly matched or if (as Raul correctly likes to say) one prefers something other than the sound of natural instruments and voices.

The Shelter 901 was the cartridge du jour last year. That's why I bought one for my first MC. Since then I've heard it side by side with top Koetsus and my ZYX. The Koetsu's slightly burnish the leading and trailing edges of every waveform. This gives them that fabled, gentle warmth or glow, which is indeed seductive if not quite accurate. The 901 does the opposite in a sense. It overshoots on leading edges, which slightly etches the edges of everything and makes it all sound a touch over the top. Very exciting, very detailed, not warm in any respect whatsoever (except on a Schroeder Reference. That combo was magical. Cmk's suggestion of the 2 should be taken seriously).

I've only heard your ML's once, and that in a shop with a poor setup. Even worse, they were brand new and certainly not broken in. I'll trust your characterizaton of course. (BTW, do you hear a disconnect between the bass drivers and the midrange/treble. I thought I did but I was only there for a minute.) If the ML's are the slightest bit bright or edgy or tizzy, a Shelter 901 may emphasize that. A Koetsu will round it off a bit. A ZYX will play it pretty much straight down the middle, nothing emphasized but nothing hidden either.

BTW, there's a good chance my 901 will be available for a cheap demo in your home fairly soon. Keep your eyes pealed to this forum. That would be worth more than all this talk!

Tonearm mass and cartridge compliance are normally shown in the manufacturer's specs. Formulas for *estimating* the resonance frequency of any particular combo can be found by searching at VA.

Artar 1,

I haven't heard a Moerch so I can't speak about its sound, except to note that one possible limitation. Obviously Raul likes it and he's heard a lot of arms. It certainly finds its way onto a lot of high quality rigs. Ditto for the Shelter 501 BTW. It's okay with me if you buy one! :-)

The OL Encounter has an effective mass of 14g. Excellent for Shelter, Denon, Koetsu. Probably okay for ZYX though borderline. My arm has 11g effective mass and its a perfect match for a ZYX judging by resonance frequencies. (These can be easily measured with the HFN&RR test record.) An Encounter/ZYX would resonate near the bottom of the "ideal" 8-12 Hz range. What kind of floors and TT support will you have? The more stable the floor and support the less a slightly low resonance frequency is likely to matter.

Good that you're doing your research on the ZYX and other carts. Dudley's Airy review seemed more positive to me than your characterization. Remember how he kept saying things like, "Many of you will rush out right now"? The flaws or shortcomings he listed at the end were IMO precisely due to the weaknesses of the three rigs he tested it on. (He partly used a Rega P3 for pete's sake. That's beyond ridiculous.) This review and another one he did of the Galibier Quattro were discussed here recently at some length. Search and ye shall find!

I only vaguely remember Fremer's review. I vividly remember Arthur Salvatore's. Despite his abrasive style, I trust Salvatore's ears and skills more than Fremer's. When he describes something I've heard, I generally agree with his description. The only way one could be "underwhelmed" by the Airy2 is if it were poorly set up, poorly matched or if (as Raul correctly likes to say) one prefers something other than the sound of natural instruments and voices.

The Shelter 901 was the cartridge du jour last year and the year before. That's why I bought one for my first MC. Since then I've heard it side by side with top Koetsus and my ZYX. The Koetsu's slightly burnish the leading and trailing edges of every waveform. This gives them that fabled, gentle warmth or glow, which is indeed seductive if not quite accurate. The 901 does the opposite in a sense. It overshoots on leading edges, which slightly etches the edges of everything and makes it all sound a touch over the top. Very exciting, very detailed, not at all warmish in any respect whatsoever (except on a Schroeder Reference. That combo was magical).

I've only heard your ML's once, and that in a shop with a poor setup. Even worse, they were brand new and certainly not broken in. I'll trust your characterizaton of course. (BTW, do you hear a disconnect between the bass drivers and the midrange/treble. I thought I did but I was only there for a minute.) If the ML's are the slightest bit bright or edgy or tizzy, a Shelter 901 may emphasize that. A Koetsu will round it off a bit. A ZYX will play it pretty much straight down the middle, nothing emphasized but nothing hidden either.

BTW, there's a good chance my 901 will be available for a cheap demo in your home fairly soon. Keep your eyes pealed to this forum. That would be worth more than all this talk!

Tonearm mass and cartridge compliance are normally shown in the manufacturer's specs. Formulas for *estimating* the resonance frequency of any particular combo can be found by searching at VA.

Doug
Frank discontinued the model 1, replacing it with the DPS which is cheaper than the 1, but the DPS offers easier setup and borrows some parts of the model 2, but with a wooden armwand. The model 2 has always been on his line. In fact, he hinted at its resonance dampening properties in the other "Schroeder arm" thread. All his arms have the thread suspension and magnetic dampening and therefore share a similar family sound.

Artar1
Thanks. Those spks follow the principle of less is more. Tube power with high efficiency full range spks is audio heaven. ;) I play all kinds of music, classical, jazz, rock, pop, new age, except metal.

I'm not sure who the dealer/agent is where you are. If its the US, then I think its Audio Advancements. I'm not in the US, but it should be below $2k.

As to matching, the model 2 has an effective mass of 12g and should match 80% of carts out there. You can do some calculations about the cart/arm resonance to see if they match your cart of choice. For carts like the 103r(low compliance), Frank supplies a brass plate which increases the mass by 6g and would allow you a wider choice.

I'm using the Dynavector Te Kaitora low output mc. I had the TK bef getting the Schroeder. Well I like the Dyna sound, its a bit of a mix between the liquid, warm school and the strict analytical cool school, but has excellent dynamics when matched with an appropriate phono stage. The Karat D17mkII has a similar sound, but the TK is fuller and warmer.

Dougdeacon,

I didn't know that the tonearm cable should be uninterrupted for higher-quality MC cartridges, like the ZYX. I didn't know that cable breaks would degrade the sound. With the cable design of the Moerch DP-6, how much degradation would result by this design? Would it be a small amount or would it be noticeable by someone like me? The Moerch has the flexibility of interchangeable arms to match different cartridge compliances, but what good would that be if the cable disrupts too much of the fidelity? And do you think the Origin Live Encounter could do double duty by handling both the Shelter 501 and the ZYX?

In regards to ZYX, Robert Levi has done handsprings over the ZYX R100H, whereas Stereophile's Sam Tellig felt it was uninvolving, or something like that. Also Michael Fremer was underwhelmed by the more expensive ZYX R-100 FS, and Art Dudley's response to the ZYX R-1000 Airy S was somewhat lukewarm at best. My concern about the ZYX is that it might be too neutral and may not be involving enough, especially when I think about how neutral sounding my speakers are all ready and may be pushed into sounding perhaps sterile.

No, I don't listen to hard rock, techno, punk, or electronica. I listen to classical music and jazz. I even have a Perry Como recording! (Now how bad is that?) But I don't understand how the Shelter 901 would not be good for classical music or jazz?

Thanks for your help as always!

Twl,

If Dougdeacon is the man, then u'd the man of the man! (Well, that really didn't make much sense?)

I do have plans to at least try the Shelter 501 (I hope Dougdeacon ain't readin' this!). So if that's the case, the Hadcock won't work as a one-arm solution. It also appears that the Music Maker, with a compliance of 30 cu, places it in a category apart from cartridges like Shelter, Koetsu, and Denon. Of those three, it would be the Shelter for sure.

"When you start bringing "looks" into the equation, and thinking that performance may not be affected, you are venturing into very dangerous territory."

That's what my friend said about my wife six years ago. Well things seem to be working out between us so maybe there's hope for a tonearm? : > )

As for the Triplanar, its too much on the pricey side so maybe I will have to pass.

By the way, what do you think about the ZYX R100 Fuji? You can e-mail me if your feedback is controversial?

Now, I would like to know how to determine the compliance of a cartridge and the mass of a tonearm? Moreover, how do I match up compliance with mass? Robert Hartley (Now don't make fun of him!) says it's important but doesn't bother to explain how to do the math or where to obtain such information. Nor does he talk at length about matching a tonearm's bearing assembly with the cartridge to be used. Help!

Here's another question: Can the Origin Live Encounter handle both a ZYX and a Shelter? I know you use the Silver version, so that must work well, correct? What about that possibility?

Here's yet another question: You have the Teres 245. Did you consider the Teres 255 with the bird-shot platter? I know the lead adds mass, but is it worth the extra cost and doesn't one need a more powerful motor to spin the added weight?

Thanks for your help.

Soliver,

I appreciate the Music Maker/Hadcock recommendation. If the Music Maker were to be my last cartridge, I just might go for it. But I think I have my heart set on a moving coil. I know that may sound a bit irrational, but there it is. What can I say? But wait a minute...

It seems that the Music Maker is a redesigned Grado Reference without the wooden body. It has a high compliance and a relatively high output of 4.0 mV. The descriptions of I have read in the three reviews of the cartridge tell me that it has a sound similar to the Grado Sonata but with more transparency and detail and a better balanced frequency response. To paraphrase TNT Audio, female voices are natural and sensual, as one would expect from a Grado. Sibilants are very natural and not harsh at all. The Music Maker is a good tracker, has excellent bass and bass articulation, something missing in the Sonata, and is smooth and easy to listen to. TNT goes on to say that it sounds like a really good CD player, minus any upper midrange brightness or coarseness in the upper most registers. 6 Moons concurs and adds that soundstaging is very 3-D and instruments have a slight rounding. Not tinny at all. And Stereo Times, using mystic and even impassioned language, describes the Music Maker as having an uncanny ability to convey the genuine gestalt of the music.

"No single aspect of its sonic performance stuck out. It didn't sound bright and lean, nor mellow and muffled. It didn't sound fast or slow...It just sounded like music."

While such languages pulls at the more poetic aspects of my heart, it does lack a little objectivity in enabling me to grasp the true nature of Music Maker. Also, at a thousand big ones, the Music Maker puts itself in a category close to the Grado Statement Reference and Benz Micro L2 just two hundred dollars away. Having said that, the Music Maker doesn't do the Grado tango nor does it have the Grado hum!

Cmk,

Nice system. I really like your speakers. I mean they almost look alive, or something. I'm sure you get that comment a lot from the non-audiophile types that stumble into your listening room.

I have not considered Schroeder in the past because of price. They make one hell of an arm, and wow is it cool looking. (Sorry Twl!) The Model 2 should make a good match with the Teres; it's listed on the Teres web site as an approved arm. Now the question I have for you is how much does it cost? If it's under two big ones, I will give it serious consideration. But any arm I buy will need to give me flexibility for future cartridge swapping. Right now it's a toss up between the ZXY and the Shelter 501. But I may also want to try a Benz Micro or a Dynavector in the future. It would be financially painful indeed to have to buy a different tonearm for each cartridge. Now it makes a lot more sense why I see a few turntables with multiple arms and arm mounts.

By the way, which cartridge do you use on your Schroeder? How did you go about choosing it?

Howdy,

So now we're on to tone controls and tubes. Interesting! Well, count me among those who like those little (or big) bottles. I am planning on buying a tubed amp for my Martin Logans. Heaven knows they need some life, richness, vitality, and warmth so they will sound half-human.

I've got a lot more to say, but first I need to get some work done, and my right arm is also hurting so I got to take it a little easy. Nevertheless, I think I'm getting some where thanks to all the posting being done here. I can say without a doubt that if I didn't ask all these dumb questions, I know for sure I would have blown my analog setup. You know it's not that easy; digital has turned my brain into a basket of a bunch of ones and zeros!

BTW to Artar 1,
Just so you know where I'm coming from with the ZYX recommendation, if you listened to hard rock, techno, punk, electronica or the like, I'd recommend the Shelter 901 over a ZYX any day. Like some forum members, it's a bit of a head-banging character itself. ;-)

"Equalized" or not, the differences between these two cartridges are easy to hear. For the natural reproduction of acoustic instruments and voices, a ZYX is a better choice, assuming appropriate arm, phono stage, etc.

AFAIK, TWL listens to different music than you and I. Not surprising that he likes a different cartridge. Quite reasonable.

Hey, no question there are better systems than mine. There are better systems than Twl's too. And Jphii's. And Cmk's. So what? How does stating this obvious fact help Artar 1 select a cartridge? Should he ignore the experiences of everyone but the one person in the world who owns your idea of the perfect system? Spare us your arrogance.

The impressions I've posted of our ZYX have been confirmed by every review that's been published in print, online or by private owners. The review I linked to above is just one among many.

The Fuji supplanted the Shelter 901 in Arthur Salvatore's system for the very same musical reasons that the Airy2 supplanted the Shelter 901 in ours.

Rushton recently told us that, "Lloyd Walker was very complimentary of the ZYX "Airy" model that you have. He said he liked many things about it and that it would possibly be his second choice to the Magic Diamond cartridge that he sells and that I use. From Lloyd, that is high praise."

My equalizers are in pretty good company, and that IS useful information for Artar 1. :-)

I own both a Shelter and a ZYX. I know what they sound like. Do you? If so please tell us.

Me too on the "mediocre equalizers"! But how can Raul hear the music with his head so far up his ***

Wow! In that case, I must be listening through "mediocre equalizers" also.

Raul: I am going to keep calling you on your rude and inappropriate posts. Your continuing personal attacks are not acceptable.

For those who don't know, Raul considers tube equipment to be "equalizers."
.

Dear Artar1: Do you know that the signal for music reproduction, in the Doug audio system, goes always through a mediocre equalizers? .
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Nobody knows it all. We're all continually learning. That's part of the fun of this hobby.

Cmk,
Is the Schroeder 2 still available? I thought he'd consolidated the line. One person I know with a Schroeder 2 and TriPlanar IV prefers the 2, so I assume it has much of the sonic neutrality of the Reference. That would be a good thing.

Artar 1,
To respond directly to one of your old questions, the SME 309 was designed for higher compliance catridges. It is too light to be a good match for a ZYX and would be even worse for a Shelter. I suppose a 312 would work with a ZYX, as would a IV or V.

FWIW, I've been spinning vinyl on my own TT's since 1967, and on my parents' since about 1959. Again, people like TWL have experience with a much wider array of high end gear. For those keeping track, we're up to 14 months with our current rig. Please adjust your barbs accordingly! ;-)

I believe the Schroeder model 2 is below $2k, plus it shares the same string suspension and magnetic damping of its more expensive brethren.

Artar1: For the tonearm the Morch DP6 will be a very good choice. You don't have to worry about the compliance of the cartridge because the Morch tonearm has different mass arm wands and you can match with any cartridge. BTW, Acoustic Signature hands down Teres.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Artar, it is important to match the tonearm and cartridge well. If you want to use a "pretty" unipivot tonearm, then the ZYX will give a better match than the Shelter. In fact, the ZYX will be much more likely to match alot of other tonearms, due to its compliance rating of 15cu. When you get into the lower compliance cartridges like Shelter, Koetsu, Denon DL103, it is much more difficult to get a proper match with the currently available crop of tonearms.
I think the low compliance cartridges give the sound I like, but the ZYX cartridges are excellent, and they are easier to match to most tonearms.

Perhaps you can find a happy matchup with a nice pretty Morch or Schroeder, and a ZYX cartridge.