Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Can’t have too much Stravinsky. Fantastic composer with a VERY personal musical language.

A strong hint of the differences between the cartridges can be heard even before the music starts. The tonal character and apparent speed of the record’s surface noise is obviously different with each cartridge. With the Palladian it is sharper, more incisive and faster. With the Grace it sounds a little thicker; rounder and covered with less high frequency content and not as incisive. The differences are subtle, but they are there.

The effect on the music is the same. With the Grace there is less high frequency detail so the timbre of different instruments is homogenized. One hears less of each instrument’s distinctive timbre; less natural tonal color. Partly as a result of this the timbre of instruments seem to have more body with the Grace, but it is mostly the absence of high frequency detail that highlights the midrange and lows. Compared to the Palladian the Grace sounds a little too thick through the lower midrange and bass ranges.

With the Palladian not only does the flute in the openimg sound slightly more appropriately metallic, but the player’s phrasing sounds a little more energetic. When the cellos and basses enter with the repeated downbeats at 0:25, with the Grace those downbeats sound thicker and borderline muddy by comparison to the Palladian. Likewise, in the wonderful waltz at 2:08 the bass clarinet downbeats sound too warm and thick with less pitch definition than with the Palladian. Overall, with the Grace there is a subtle sense of the music being played just slightly slower and less energetically. There is also less sense of air and hf extension.

All very subtle differences, but the Palladian simply sounds closer to the sound of the real thing; particularly in the areas of timbre realism.
The Grace sounds great, but the Palladian is pretty special to my ears.

Thanks, Halcro.

Thanks for indulging me, Halcro. Unfortunately, it appears that “This video contains content from SME who has blocked it in your (my) country on copyright grounds” ☹️

Edit:

With the Grace, “when the brass first plays, not only did I first have to process whether it was really the sound of brass and not a synth, but I could not hear as clearly that it wasn’t only trumpets, but trombones as well.  The Palladian made all this immediately more obvious. “

Unabashed ear-candy. Problem is that there is too much artificial flavoring and not enough real fruit juice in this candy. For me, this music is less “corny” than it is bad sounding. Early digital all the way. Spatially it probably sounds incredible on your system; it is very impressive over my Stax in that respect. But, the ubiquitous (for the time) weird high frequency artifacts that seemed to accompany the upper mids and highs of early digital recording/mastering are very obvious; like a strange halo that rides above the vocals and high frequency sounds. Classic ‘80s LA studio recording sonic aesthetic.

Having said all that and “reading (hearing) between the lines” there are differences heard between the two cartridges that make, for me and once again, the Palladian the clear winner. At first, the Grace may seem to be even more impressive in the spatial/soundstaging department. I think that at least some of that is due to the fact that the Grace is more generous in the bass to lower mid range and adds body to the sound. However, this range sounds “plummy”; a little too thick. The Palladian’s bass is leaner but better controlled and the suggestion is there that it probably goes a bit lower than the Grace. The Palladian sounds leaner overall, but the sound seems better organized if on a somewhat smaller or less voluminous scale.

Probably less so than most MMs (not the Victors) compared so far the Grace’s midrange still has what I hear as a slightly bleached out tonal character. A little gray sounding with a subtle quality that I would describe as a soft graininess. The Palladian’s sound in this range sounds more lucid and complete. Imagine looking at a picture in a newspaper; one can see the dots in the images. With the Grace one can see (hear) dots in the mids and highs. The Palladian seems to pack more dots into the same space (time) for a more complete sense of timbre and texture.  The advantage of this is that the sound of instruments is more complete and recognized more easily. When the brass first plays, not only did I first have to process whether it was really the sound of brass and not a synth, but I could not hear as clearly that it wasn’t only trumpets, but trombones as well.  The Palladian made all this immediately more obvious.

On the other hand, the Grace sounds bigger, more robust and more powerful in the bass for a potentially more “impressive” sonic image. This may appeal to some listeners more and may also be a more suitable match in certain systems. Both sound great and considering the price difference the Grace is pretty amazing. However, this recording is so heavily processed that I’m not sure what any of this proves as far as ranking one as “better” than the other. Personally, I would love to hear the two cartridges playing something like the Stravinsky “Firebird”.

Thanks for the comparison, Halcro.

Wonderful music and Stern sounds great!

“any perceptible differences”?  Couldn’t be more obvious.  Amazing what a difference different cantilever material makes.

Beryllium cantilever sounds way too dry and almost totally lacking natural instrumental color.  Timbres sound dry and bleached out.  Strange piano sound.  Violin sound is better, but still too wiry and thin in the highest register.

Ruby sounds much more natural with just a touch of appropriate juiciness and natural color in the violin’s timbre.  Piano sounds MUCH more realistic and weightier.  

Complicating matters however is that “dry with slightly bleached out timbre” is a sound that I associate with some Columbia “Six Eyes”.  So, is the berillium being more honest about what is on the record while the Ruby is adding a bit of juice?  Regardless, the Ruby sounds much more like real.  Neither tracks flawlessly.

Actually, don’t tell me...yet 🤔

I must be missing something; I’m a simple man 😔.  Are we listening to Grace or to Shure carts?  

Halcro, not quite sure what the point of ninetynine’s post is, but his opening sentence is a good lead in to my response to your most recent post. What I mean is that I have tried to make it very clear in my comments here that those comments have been simply about whether differences between the cartridges (usually two) being compared can actually be heard using this methodology (they can be), what the perceived differences are and, most important for me, which of the two cartridges and its sound in the context of your system sounds closest to the general sound of live music; limitations of this methodology and all. Having said all that, my observations here have also confirmed for me much of what I have experienced in the much more realistic context of my own audio systems and those that I have extensive experience with. “Context”:

I don’t claim to have nearly as much experience with nearly as wide a range of equipment as I am sure you have had. However, I feel that over the many years that I have been at this hobby I have owned and lived with, or otherwise experienced, enough different pieces of equipment of different types (tube/ss, belt/dd, mc/mm, electrostatic/dynamic, etc.) to feel justified in my “preferences”. I don’t seek nor particularly enjoy constant or endless equipment churning. For me, when discussing aspects of this hobby it is not a competition. I don’t judge someone else’s preferences in sound, but I have strong opinions about what sounds more realistic or natural TO ME. I do think that we all tend to underestimate just how far all equipment, regardless of the particular technology employed, strays from the “absolute sound”. The word “neutral” is often bandied about as if any of this gear actually even gets close to being neutral in the true sense of the word. “Preferences”:

My “preference” is always for gear, or combination of gear, that TO ME sounds closest to the sound of live music. To me, GENERALLY SPEAKING, tube equipment captures/reproduces more of the nuances in the sound, texture and expression in the sound of live music than does solid state. Each technology deviates generally from true neutrality in different ways, but for me tubes do less harm to the music.  I feel the same way about electrostatic speakers. I have never heard a midrange as tonally natural as that from my Stax ELS F-81’s. They do have significant limitations, but that is another story; most of what matters most to me in the sound of music happens in the midrange. Btw, re horns, I certainly have not heard all that is out there; but ut I have heard, among others, Gallos, Jadis Eurithmy (?) and, of course, Klipsch as well as many pro systems and they have all exhibited a particular midrange quality to varying degrees that I don’t particularly like. Dynamically, they have generally been great. I like and enjoy both MC and MM cartridges, but in the context of my systems a good and well set up MC has usually done less harm to the music. I generally find that MM’s lack in the areas of natural tonal colors and the very fine and subtle details in the texture of the sound of live instruments.  They often (not always) impart a gray or slightly bleached quality to timbres. Not just because of the fact that I use tubes.  I have consistently heard that quality in these comparisons with the notable exception of one or two of the Victor cartridges.  “Dated/modern cartridges”:

I am a bit confused by your comment. First, I will point out that I did not say “current” MC’s. As I pointed out I realize very well that my experience with different gear is not nearly as extensive as yours, but having been in this hobby since the late ‘70s if cartridges like the Benz Ruby 3, Shelter 901, VDH’s, MonsterSG2000 and others cannot be considered “modern” cartridge designs then I guess I am even more behind the times than I thought ☹️. Btw, my ATML170OCC is seldom used. IN MY SYSTEM I hear it as colorless and slightly dynamically constricted compared to a good MC. I hear the same qualities to varying degrees in the AT’s that have been compared here. Needless to say, I don’t agree that there has been no progress in cartridge design.  

I also don’t agree with the often stated notion that because “we all hear differently” this accounts for different “preferences”. First this idea may or may not be true and I don’t understand enough about the biology involved to have an informed opinion. However, here is why I don’t think the notion, true or not, is relevant. Let’s assume that it is true. Well, then this goes to why, ultimately, comparison to the sound of live acoustic music is the only truly valid way to determine which sound is “best” (neutral): whatever personal or idiosyncratic individual biological factors may exist to cause each of us to perceive the sound of audio gear a certain way as compared to someone else would cause each of us to hear the sound of live acoustic music that same way. No getting around this.

Lastly, every one of the cartridges that we have had the rare opportunity to hear here (thank you!) have, with a couple of notable exceptions, sounded very different from each other. They can’t all be “neutral” while sounding so different. We may “prefer” a little more of this or a little less of that, but is that closer to real? For whatever it may be worth, FOR ME, the sound of the Decca Reference has been, by quite a bit, closest to the sound of real

Lets hear it for “meaningful dialogue”. And why not? I won’t get riled up or angry as often happens if anyone disagrees with any of this. However, if someone tries to tell me that Screaming Jay is a great singer then all bets are off 😊. Best.

Halcro, I will offer some further thoughts day after tomorrow when I will have some time.

Right you are, and sorry about that.  Not quite sure why I wrote that other than the fact that I was always bothered by the comparisons in which the arms were not the same.  I understand that you chose the arms in which each cartridge performed best, but still not an even playing field to my way of thinking.  To be frank, most times I purposely chose to not pay too much attention to the arms or table used so as not to let any bias creep into my assessment and to simply concern myself with the sound.  I guess that in trying to avoid a bias I fell victim to one of a different kind 🤪

“Dated”:

These are some of my comments re FR in previous comparisons and should help explain what I meant by “dated”:

*** My main issue with the FR is the stereotypical criticism of early MC’s: the highs are unnaturally etched and hard. ***

*** the description that keeps coming up for me re the sound of the FR is “colored” in the way that some vintage gear is: a little bit of added thickness and darkness to romanticize the midrange, slightly rounded and generous bass range that is not as fully extended and slightly hard highs. ***

*** the FR sounds hard and borderline harsh in the highs while imposing a pervasive dark(ish) character to the mids. It seems to impart a tonal quality to the sound that reminds me a bit of a quality that I, correctly or not, associate with horn speakers. Strings sound steely and way too aggressive ***

Imo, excellent modern MC cartridges, the Palladian in particular and as heard in your comparisons are generally more refined sounding and offer better performance at the frequency extremes, the highs in particular.  They do a better job of conveying the natural timbres and texture of instruments without harshness.  

That was a great TV show. “Night Music” with host Dave Sanborn on saxophone and the sorely missed Hiram Bullock on guitar. Thanks for the clip.

I’m not sure “honest” (comparison) was the best choice of words in my post above and could be misconstrued. “Even playing field” is much better.

For me, a particularly interesting comparison because, unless I’m mistaken, the first in which the tone arm and turntable are the same for both cartridges. Even playing field and, arguably, the first truly “honest” comparison.

FR-7f:

- The better tracker of the two. Both exhibit audible breakup on Screaming Jay’s screams, but noticeably less so with the 7f.
- Sibilants are better controlled with the 7f.
- 7f is fuller sounding
- 7f is slightly more “refined” sounding

So, the 7f is the better cartridge? Not so fast.

FR-7fz:

- In spite of its less extended high frequency spec, with the 7fz one doesn’t hear the obvious high frequency “ceiling” that one hears with the 7f. I hear more high frequency air with the 7fz. The 7fz sounds more linear while the 7f sounds slightly tubby and rounded by comparison. (So much for specs telling the story). I think this is the reason that:
- 7fz sounds slightly more rhythmically incisive. The leading edge of the sound of the rhythm instruments is more natural and incisive with the 7fz while the 7f dulls those leading edges slightly. As a result the wonderful triplet rhythm of the tune is more “groovy” with the 7fz.
- It took me several listens to figure out whether the rhythm instrument playing on 2 and 3 of the triplets was an unusual sounding keyboard or a guitar. The 7fz let me hear that it is, in fact, a guitar (sounds like a guitar with nylon strings). The 7f obscures this detail.
- Also contradicting the specs, the 7fz sounds very slightly less loud than the 7f. Probably a psychoacoustic result of the fuller character of the 7f.

Very close comparison; but, for me, the 7fz wins; sounds closer to real. J Caar is exactly correct (no surprise): “the top end extension is a little curtailed.“ For me, more so with the 7f and while both sound very good they both sound “dated”.

Fun recording and thanks for the opportunity to hear these classic cartridges.

Fabulous music. Great recording of one of the very greatest of all orchestral works; and a very good performance. For me, the most impressive sound from halcro’s great system so far. Thanks for that.

Well, it should be obvious which of the two cartridges I think wins simply by extrapolating from my preferences in previous comparisons. The short of it is that, IMO, it is not even close.

Whether we like it or not, comparison to the sound of unamplified acoustic music sets the standard for determining what “accuracy” in sound really is. The reality is that there is infinitely more nuance of tonal color and rhythmic interplay in a recording like this than in the vast majority of studio recordings; especially those on which electronic instruments are played. This is not a judgment about the validity of one type of music relative to another. So, it seems to me that if the goal is to determine which cartridge is “better”, the determining factor has to be which gets closer to the sound of acoustic unamplified music. IMO, a system (cartridge) that does the best possible job on a well recorded orchestral work like this will, on balance, do the best job with any type of music.

The Decca is a killer cartridge. In comparison, the FR sounds hard and borderline harsh in the highs while imposing a pervasive dark(ish) character to the mids. It seems to impart a tonal quality to the sound that reminds me a bit of a quality that I, correctly or not, associate with horn speakers. Strings sound steely and way too aggressive. The Decca does a much better job with the nuanced texture one hears from live strings. The sound of massed strings is fabulous with the Decca. The Decca also does a much better job of separating musical lines and doesn’t sound confused during complex and densely orchestrated passages as the FR does. The sounds of winds and percussion are equally realistic with the Decca. Listen to the marimba beginning at 1:55. Not only is the sound of the instrument beautifully woody sounding as it should be, one can actually hear the sound of the wall behind the player. The percussion instruments are typically situated close to the rear wall and with the Decca one can actually hear the reflection off the back wall. There is a unique quality to the sound of a section of instruments blending well and playing beautifully together; as if riding on a cushion of air. The FR obscures all these details by comparison.

Did I say I like the Decca? 😊






Sent from my iPad

Thanks for the great comments, dover.  You are of course correct when you say that not having been at the recording session one cannot know with certainty which tonal balance is correct.  I don’t disagree that there is “more grunt” in Simone’s voice with the FR.  As you correctly suggest “more” doesn’t necessarily mean better (more accurate).  Not meaning to argue the point, but for further clarification:

Extrapolating from the overall sonic character and not just the sound of the voice one of the clues that, in this case, “more” vocal grunt may not be correct can be found in, for instance, the sound of the piano and bass.  To me the sound of the piano sounds more linear (correct) with the Palladian.  With the FR it sounds slightly thicker as does the bass (although not as extended).  You correctly pointed out that the bass is better articulated with the Palladian.  This impression is I think a result of the better linearity.  Less articulation is I think the result of that pervasive, but slight thickness that the FR adds.  This is what is heard ad “more grunt” in the voice.  A specific example can be heard at 0:47.  A simple two note descending line from the bass.  To me those two notes sound closer to the sound of a real fingers plucking a real bass with the Palladian; better articulated and better texture and pitch definition.  With the FR I don’t hear as much realism in the sound.  

A clue to the answer of whether the nasality in Simone’s voice is natural or not can be found, as on the first track, in the sound of the drummer’s brushes.  Once again, with the FR the sound is too tight and hard, almost metallic.  With the Palladian one can more clearly hear the softer textured sound of individual bristles.  

I hate to use of the term “colored” as often (ab)used by we audiophiles since the sound of real instruments has a great deal of natural color.  However, the description that keeps coming up for me re the sound of the FR is “colored” in the way that some vintage gear is: a little bit of added thickness and darkness to romanticize the midrange, slightly rounded and generous bass range that is not as fully extended and slightly hard highs.  A general quality that I hear on both tracks.  Reminds me a bit of the sound of the two versions of the Denon 103 that I owned many moons ago, but on a much higher overall quality level.  

As you correctly pointed out both cartridges are clearly very good.  Thanks again for your insights.

As usual, I listened on Stax Lambda Pro Sigs with Stax tube energizer.

**** To my ears the Palladian has a much more open soundstage particularly in the vocal area, more articulated bottom end. **** - dover

I completely agree with this description.  I would add more realistic instrumental timbres.  This in spite of the fact that the FR has that hard to describe quality that some vintage gear has which draws one in in spite of the flaws.  My reaction is usually pretty immediate: which of the two sounds is the most removed from the sound of live instruments?  Fidelity Research.  Which is closest?  Palladian.  Of course tonal accuracy (natural color) is not necessarily the end all for every listener.  For me it’s pretty close to the top of priorities; second only to rhythmic drive. 

For me the most important difference between the two cartridges is heard from the very start of the first track.  The first percussion instrument one hears is the “cajon brush”, a bunch (literally) of bristles bound together that give a distinctive high pitched sound.  With the FR it sounds almost electronic; too tight, hard and metallic sounding.  The Palladian lets one hear the softer and more natural texture of the sound of individual bristles.  Then, listen to the finger rolls on the bongo drums at 0:13, 0:20 and throughout the track.  With the Palladian not only do the rolls sound more rhythmically incisive, but one can more clearly hear the texture of the sound of fingers hitting the drum skin.  One hears less of the body of the drums with the FR.  The Palladian does a better job of separating the sound of the various percussion instruments for a better sense of their musical interaction.  When the violins enter at 4:20, with the FR it takes a couple of seconds to be sure it is violins playing and not a synth patch.  With the Palladian one knows right away it is violins.  

My main issue with the FR is the stereotypical criticism of early MC’s: the highs are unnaturally etched and hard.   

On the Simone track one hears similar differences between the two cartridges again from the start of the track.  The piano’s timbre is more naturally convincing with the Palladian.  With the FR the vocals have a slightly pinched quality.  Listen in particular to the change in the quality of the voice at 0:15 and especially at 0:32 when she sings “and then some”; particularly on the word “then”.  Simone’s voice naturally takes on a slightly nasal quality on “then”.  With the Palladian it sounds more like a natural change in character.  With the FR, its slightly hard and pinched highs combined with Simone’s naturally nasal quality on that lyric cause the word “then” to have an unnatural edge.  

The FR sounds very good and has that elusive ability to draw one into the music, but for me the Palladian simply sounds more natural.  Both cartridges exhibit signs of strain on certain musical passages.  My main criticism of the Palladian is that it seems to fare worse than the FR in that department.  It is sometimes hard to tell what is mic overload and what is strain or outright mistracking, but I hear both issues on both tracks and with both cartridges; more so with the Palladian.

****  I prefer speed and resolution of LOMC's however there is a big caveat. I'd rather have a good MM/MI than a cheap MC with aberrations. Also I think that good MC phono stages with openness, transparency are few and far between, and in this instance a good MM/MI into the MM input can yield more musical results. ****

I couldn’t agree more and it has been exactly my experience.  

Thanks for the comparison, halcro. 

Great to see the comments of fellow ET2 user dover.  Very short on time until tomorrow Sunday when I will offer some impressions.  Good Saturday, all.  

1:45 “reach”, “broken”
2:07 “price”
2:30 “Grande”
2:47 “flows”
2:49 “like”

All spots where there is obvious distortion (break up).  In between those spots it often sounds as if on the verge of break up.  From 2:50-3:42 it is worse with the very worst spot at 3:42 on “border line”.   It’s not subtle at all and I must say that this level of distortion makes the differences between the cartridges pretty irrelevant for me.

Surprisingly, the highest level and frequency of distortion is heard with the Palladian.  I agree with noromance’s descriptions of the sound of the cartridges and the differences between the Palladian and the Decca observed in their previous comparison apply.  Some of the qualities of the Palladian favor this type of studio recording giving it a more expansive and impressive soundstage.  But the distortion makes those qualities seem moot.  

**** Therefore....in my system......there are cartridges which have more ’shimmering’ highs.
There are cartridges which have more ’air’ and ’transparency’.
There are cartridges which go convincingly lower.
There are cartridges which project a wider and deeper ’soundstage’ and yes.......there are cartridges which manage to give me more ’magic’ and ’emotion’. ****

I have no doubt. However, with the possible exception of the “magic and emotion”, I’m not sure what any of that has to do with sounding better. Moreover, “magic and emotion” has much to do with our individual tastes and preferences for “more air”, “more bass”, etc. I always thought that the whole point of HEA was to try and replicate the sound of live music as closely as possible. HP of TAS fame always pointed out the danger of comparing components to each other as opposed to the sound of live. I realize some thought of him as an pompous blowhard, but the man had great ears and a great methodology, imo.

Azden/Palladian:

**** Aaaaahhh 😱....
Unlistenable!!!
Bass was bloated and ill-defined, treble was screechy and distorted and the mids were flat, recessed and boring.
There was no soundstage (either side to side or back to front) and no air or transparency.
In a sentence....it was one of the worst sounds I had heard from any cartridge in my system 🤬 ****

There has to be something wrong with your sample of this cartridge. What you describe is nothing I have ever experienced; far from it. What I do see from the pic of the side view is that your P mount adaptor must be misshapen. Perhaps the result of overtightening the mounting screws? Look at the cartridge pins relative to the tone arm tube or top of the headshell; the pins should be in line with or parallel to them. As is, you will experience major negative VTA; which explains the need to raise the back of the arm so much.

I must say that this comparison, unfortunately, is the most difficult so far, because the sound, with both cartridges, is by far the worst that I have heard from your system. I have to assume that it is the recording that is poor (I don’t know it at all) and not the issues with the mounting of the Azden, because things aren’t any better overall with the Palladian. There is a lot of obvious distortion that sounds like tracking distortion or that the vinyl is shot; particularly on the vocals when it is joined by the strings and others. Not good at all. Almost incredibly (price difference), the Azden seems to do a better job of tracking than the P since considerably less distortion is heard with it.

The other problem is what sounds like the air conditioner in the room is on. I can’t believe that what sounds like obvious white noise is on the recording. Very distracting and it actually sounds like the AC was turned up even more when the Azden was playing. If the noise is on the record, that is one noisy record.

Thanks for this latest comparison, but......

Sorry for adding to the frustration 😖

I think you’re being a little too hard on yourself. You are obviously a very astute and experienced listener and you have assembled a killer system. Your criteria for choosing your gear are obviously pretty darn good; I would not despair about that.  Please keep in mind that I don’t particularly enjoy nor seek any kind of mantle of authority about this stuff. It’s a fun hobby and talking about the music is far more interesting. Also keep in mind that I spend, on average, a minimum of about 4 hours a day, every day (some days, much more) around the sound of live acoustic instruments. Again, I don’t claim any kind of authority on this stuff; I try and put my opinions out there based on what I hear and some may roll their eyeballs and think I’m full of it. That’s ok, I know what I hear. You might find it interesting to know that the level of nuance in sound that most professional musicians deal with when choosing and tweaking their instrument, not to mention when performing, is often considerably finer and more elusive than anything we as audiophiles discuss. You may be surprised at how much time is spent analyzing the differences heard between, for instance, saxophone ligatures (that’s the little “clamp” that holds the reed to the mouthpiece). Not to mention the differences between the reeds or the instruments themselves; or between skin and leather pads. It’s pretty endless.

You are absolutely correct. The sound of our systems can be more “impressive” than the sound in some halls. And, yes, orchestral recordings like the Bartok are extremely difficult to reproduce (the reason that I asked for one). However, there are certain qualities in the sound of live music that will be there no matter how impressive, or not, is the overall sound compared to the sound of a good system. These qualities are usually in the areas of timbre and immediacy. Some of it is elusive and difficult to describe and one just knows it when one hears it; like the sound of a musician practicing saxophone coming out of an open window. High fidelity? Not compared to the “impressive” sound of our systems; but, in certain ways it is ultimate fidelity and one immediately knows that the sound is live. Re the two cartridges:

I think you shortchange yourself when you say that you wouldn’t be able to tell which one was playing. First, these two cartridges are, IMO, the two best so far.....FOR ME. As we all know, as gear gets better and better the differences tend to get smaller and smaller. Still, given the way that you have described what you hear from the various previous cartridges, I’m having a little trouble believing that you wouldn’t be able to tell which was which. Besides, being able to tell which is playing “while blindfolded” is not quite the same as being able to hear differences between the two and I have no doubt that you can.

Anyway, forgive the rambling and I don’t mean to get preachy about any of this. Thanks again for letting us experience vicariously the sound of these great cartridges. I think that being an audiophile should always remain fun while keeping the focus on the performance aspects at least as much as on the sound of it. My two cents.

Regards.

Great record and performance. I own it. Thanks.

The thing that always stands out the most for me when making these comparisons of gear of this caliber is just how far gear, even the best, has to go before it truly sounds like the real thing. The best sound systems sound amazing, but they all still deviate from true “neutrality” in very different and very audible ways. As always, listening this way has serious limitations. However, there is no question that one can hear a great deal that, on balance, makes one example sound closer to the sound of “real” than the other.... and, of course, system context plays a big part.

First, my bottom line. Which of the two cartridges fool me the most into thinking I am listening to a live orchestra? Frankly, and almost incredibly for me considering how I have felt about the Palladian previously, it’s not even close. The Decca wins. I think that noromance used the word “greatness”. Of course, greatness can mean different things to different listeners.

After listening to the Palladian clip a couple of times and then going to the Decca clip the first impression is that the soundstage fell back a couple of feet and became quite a bit smaller. Soon thereafter one realizes that it is infinitely better organized and without the high frequency halo and splashiness of the Palladian. When the piccolo plays those short ascending lines it also seems to grow in size as it ascends ending in a completely unnatural high frequency splash across the soundstage. Not harsh, but overly highlighted. With the Decca the piccolo’s sound always stays better localized; as it should. Instrumental timbres are more concentrated with the Decca and without the gray (lack of natural color) that I hear from the MM’s that the Palladian has been compared to. The piano sounds clangy with the Palladian and one hears wood with the Decca. The clarity that I have liked about the Palladian is still there, but there is simply too much high frequency energy.

The sound of the Palladian is much more upfront and one can feel like one is hearing deeper into the music, but there is also the sense that the music is being thrown in your face. The Decca requires that one “lean” into the music a little (a good thing) and once one does one actually hears much more musical detail and not just ear candy. The more “organized” sound lets the musical interaction of the musicians be more clearly heard.

Two great cartridges and for someone who does not listen to much acoustic music the Palladian might have the greatness; but, for me, the Decca raised the bar quite a bit. Re my first comment about “neutrality” and gear: I would love to hear the Palladian in a good all tube system.  Just a reflection of my biases, but I have a strong suspicion that it would be something special.

Great comparison and thanks for the thoughtful choice of music.

Princi, you got it right!

Not the same video.  Listened on iPhone with earbuds and won’t get a chance to listen on my Stax set until later tonight so will reserve judgment until then.  Princi is quite the critic ☺️

Thanks, halcro and noromance.  Re the Azden:  No need to apologize.  Keep in mind that I referred specifically and only to the Azden’s ability in the instrumental color dept.  I like it overall, but can definitely understand why in the company of the great cartridges in your collection it didn’t make the cut.  I can say, for instance, that my Empire D4000III Gold soundstages much better and has more powerful and extended bass, but is too soft and slightly grainy and that my Acutex has much better rhythmic drive than either.  Also, I use the ET2 linear tracker; a different animal (sorry, Princi).  Point is, I think that we each prioritize certain aspects of sound.  I key into instrumental color first and foremost. 

As as far as genre for the Palladian/Decca shootout:  How about a nice London/Decca orchestral recording?  Would you happen to have the Solti/London Symphony, Bartok “Concerto For Orchestra”?.  The finale is amazing.  If not, you probably have the Reiner/Chicago LSC?

Confession time. In the spirit of full disclosure for the acknowledgment of possible bias I should point out that I wasn’t really looking forward to this comparison; except in order to hear (sort of 😏) “Fran-Dance” on halcro’s great system. Classic record.

I wasn’t looking forward to the comparison because I wasn’t that impressed with the Garrott both times that we heard it previously. I found it to be too covered sounding with too much high frequency information missing. I don’t know if this is the same Garrott, but it sounds much better to me than the two previous times. Better high frequency detail and air; but not quite there yet, imo. Sounds very good. Still....

Sorry Princi (very cute!), but once again to my ears the Palladian lets me hear much more natural instrumental color and better separation of instruments. Miles’ Harmon mute sounds appropriately metallic and buzzy. With the Garrott it sounds a little “soft” by comparison. The bass also sounds slightly “drummy” and insdistinct. Trane’s tenor sound doesn’t have enough edge; it had a lot of edge, particularly during that period in time. Relatively subtle differences, but they are there.

The way the two cartridges soundstage is actually the most strikingly different quality. The Garrott seems more recessed while the Palladian seems to be more upfront with a larger soundstage. This is really curious: I may be wrong, but I believe this a mono pressing? Mono recordings can give a good sense of depth as well as stereo recordings. Really good ones can even have sonic cues that suggest left-right information. With the Garrott all the instruments are bunched in the middle and the presentation sounds smaller overall. With the Palladian I can clearly hear the piano to be left of center and the horns right of center within a clearly larger soundstage. If this is in fact a stereo recording then I suppose the Garrott can be said to fare even worse in this department.

I know that some disagree about this and I have avoided making these generalizations because I realize that it is not the experience of others. Based on my experience using both MM and MC cartridges in various systems over the years, with the to be expected exceptions, MM cartridges, along with their many great attributes, seem to miss the most subtle details in the natural color and texture of instrumental timbres. For me, there is often what I would characterize as a “gray(ish)” character to instrumental colors. This is the main reason that I generally can’t stand Shure cartridges. That was one of the reasons I liked the Victor (X1?) so much; the instrumental color was there. “Color” gets a bad rap from audiophiles; but the sound of instruments is full of color. MC’s seem to generally preserve more of the natural color, but unfortunately tip the overall balance upwards for a sound that can seem too lean compared to MMs’ generally fuller balance. But one can have a tonal balance that is closer to real and still not have the right instrumental color and texture. For me the Palladian strikes the best balance so far.

Btw, I would love to hear a shootout between the Palladian and the Decca Reference. THAT ought to be interesting. Another cartridge that I would love to hear is the Azden YM P50VL. My experience with various MM’s is pretty limited compared to halcro’s amazing collection, but of all the MM’s that I have owned, the Azden, while far from perfect in other departments, is the one that did not impart any of that gray (bleached) tonal quality. Don’t know why this is so, but it has been my experience; even compared to the one that I suspect most would consider the overall best in my modest collection, the ATML-170 OCC.

Thanks, halcro!

Nice descriptions by no romance and I agree completely; with the possible exception of the “makes you wanna dance” part. I say possible because, while I don’t hear any outright advantage with the Grace in the “dance” department, it is true that sometimes if one reduces one type of detail it can serve to highlight another aspect of the sound. The Grace reduces some high frequency detail. This results in the sound of the plucks of the strings of the guitar and the harpsichord sounding slightly round compared to the more realistic incisive quality one hears with the Palladian.

This recording is wonderful with many different and unique instrumental timbres. With the Grace they all sound slightly homogenized compared to the Palladian which allows one to hear more individuality in the color of the various instrumental sounds. I think the very cute pooch agrees; he(?) left the room while the Grace played ☺️

As halcro pointed out the differences are slight and make one wonder whether the price difference is justified. The Grace sounds excellent but I think the Glanz does a somewhat better job of challenging the Palladian.

So, it was you 😤.  Btw, a most unusual (strange) and interesting post.

First, Rita sounds wonderful.  Very nice performance.

I should probably go back and listen to the other cartridges that have been compared to the Palladian before making this comment, but I think that the Glanz, overall, gives the Palladian the best “run for its money” of all of them.  

The Glanz is excellent and in some ways I like its tonal balance on the sound of the piano a little better than the Palladian which sounds a little “tinkly” at times.  This is a result or the Glanz having a fuller tonal balance which also adds more weight to the bass and a seductive dusky quality to the voice.  While the piano has more realistic weight it also has a less realistic timbre overall; it sounds a little odd in the higher registers and lacking a little natural brilliance. The extra weight in the bass makes the bass sound a little too thick and with less pitch definition than the Palladian.  Listen to the three note ascending bass line at 1:52 and the upward glissando at 1:59.  Less distinct than on the Palladian where one can more clearly hear the individual pitches of the notes.  The voice on the Palladian has a better sense of purity and refinement to my ears even if that dusky quality and extra chestiness one hears with the Glanz can be very appealing.  

The Palladian also seems slightly more dynamically alive.  At 2:20 the vocal finishes a phrase with “am I blue?” and the piano takes over for a solo.  There is a dynamic crescendo that happens from that point forward until the beginning of the new chorus at 2:28.  With the Palladian this increase in intensity sounds more like an arrival at a new musical “event”; as it should.  With the Glanz this musical detail is a little less obvious and one doesn’t hear quite as much increase in intensity.

The Glanz does not track as well as the Palladian.  There are times when the sound gets a little strained and at least two obvious examples of breakup:

1:28 - on the lyric “I” one hears a bit of strain in the vocal sound.
1:50 - very obvious breakup from the low bass note along with the lyric “Lordy”.
2:43 - a bit of breakup on the sharply struck single piano note.

Both are excellent and the differences are certainly not huge.  I can definitely see how the Glanz’ tonal balance might be just the ticket in a particular system with a particular voicing.  I would be curious how the Glanz handles orchestral strings in the tracking department.  As always, I wish I could say that the less expensive cartridge beats the $10K Palladian, but I’m afraid the Palladian is still “the benchmark”.  The Palladian is a kickass cartridge.  

Thanks, Halcro; always interesting and fun.  

BTW, all timings are from the Glanz track which runs about two seconds ahead of the P track.  

No correction necessary, Halcro. With, of course, the usual caveats that listening this way has important limitations (talk about stating the obvious!) and using different tone arms has to be factored in. Still, one can compare the two different sounds and determine which one is closest to the ultimate benchmark, the sound of live.

Wow, this one is really interesting! A couple of quick listens only so far; will share some impressions later today when I have more time to listen and write. The external mic into the iPhone is a definite improvement over the previous 😉

**** However, I’m not sure that I would agree that it sounds “colored” compared to the Palladian ****

Should read:

**** However, I’m not sure that I would agree that it (Palladian) sounds “colored” compared to the Victor ****

Sorry.

Catching up to you guys. Listened on my Stax/tube set.

Palladian/MIT:

Once again, I wish I could say that the less expensive cartridge (MIT) sounds as good as the Palladian, but I just don’t hear it that way. They both sound very good, but the Palladian refuses to add extra body to the midrange/lower mids. The first minute or so of the recording tells the whole story:

From the very first notes of the piece one hears a little less false roundness to the left hand (lows) of the piano with the Palladian; a good thing. The MIT sounds slightly (!) tubby by comparison while the Palladian lets one hear more of the natural resonance and decay of low notes. Partly as a result of this the mids sound a little less incisive with the MIT; sounding, again, a little too round without as much natural leading edge. As always, the extra thickness obscures musical performance detail. The most obvious difference can be heard beginning at around :50 in the “forte” chord passages and with the sharply struck individual high notes. On demanding passages the MIT’s character seems to change dramatically (relatively) and almost sounds like a not particularly good upright piano instead of a good grand. It starts to sound clangy and almost metallic. Not good. The Palladian remains much more “composed” without strain or hint of mistracking which may be the reason for the clangy quality that the MIT exhibits on loud passages.

Palladian/Victor:

I agree with noromance that the Palladian sounds recessed by comparison. However, I’m not sure that I would agree that it sounds “colored” compared to the Palladian. “Colored” means different things to different listeners and to me the Palladian sounds closer to what I might hear during a live performance. I think that the “recessed” quality of the Palladian is simply the way it was recorded and the extra midrange juice of the Victor may be pushing things forward a bit for a seemingly less recessed quality. Much of what was heard in the Palladian/MIT comparison applies, but even more so. The Victor (most of the Victors, so far) have a very juicy midrange/lower mids that, while very attractive, is not necessarily the most natural and is, in fact, what I would call “colored”.

Even before the tune begins we can hear a difference in the tonal character of each cartridge. The audience sounds sound slightly muffled with the Victor. Then, listen to the introductory guitar accompaniment. Notice how much “bigger” the single low note that starts each measure of the ostinato guitar line is; almost as if it is being played by a different and larger instrument. That low note should have the same tonal character as the upper notes and sound more like a natural and integrated part of the musical line as heard with the Palladian. Then, when the bass enters things get a little too thick and borderline boomy for me and all that extra juice obscures some of the beautifully simple vocal harmonies.

As always, taking into account the limitations of listening this way and possible system synergy issues, I think that the Palladian is a kicka$$ cartridge. It is amazing that far less expensive cartridges can compete in any way, but still....no free rides, as they say.  I also think that being used to the terrible leanness and lack of natural tonal body of much “audiophile”-pedigree sound it is easy to be seduced by components that possibly swing too far in the opposite direction. As with most things, the truth is usually in the middle.

Thanks, all.

A couple of additional facts re this wonderful recording which, as halcro points out, should be a must-own for audiophiles. If one is to own only one recording of Classical music this one is definitely one to consider as the one. The pedigree of this recording is immaculate with associated names that should be familiar to all audiophiles who care about such matters:

The music is “Waltz Of The Flowers” from Tchaikovsky’ “Nutcracker” Ballet. The recording engineer was the legenday Kenneth Wilkinson who engineered so many of the great Decca/London recordings and it took place at London’s Kingsway Hall one of the best concert halls in the world. This one was licensed by RCA/Victor from Decca for its premium “Soria” series. In my experience any recording made by Wilkinson is worth owning if only for its sound.

Halcro, you flatter me and I confess to feeling a bit uncomfortable being the arbiter of which is best. This has been educational for me and I am glad to, time allowing, continue to offer my thoughts as my honest impressions and opinions only; while acknowledging that we all have at least somewhat different priorities and preferences when it comes to sound and that system context and the limitations of this methodology needs to be taken into account.

I don’t think that you “(have) been wrong all these years in thinking that the very best vintage MM cartridges of yesteryear can play on the same field as the best modern MCs”. No two cartridges will sound the same; often, not even two different samples of the same cartridge.  The fact that a vintage MM can compete at all with a $10,000 modern MC is kind of miraculous.  Detectable subtle differences favoring one cartridge or another don’t invalidate or diminish what they each do at least very well. I have to assume that since you don’t regret purchasing the $10,000 Palladian that you hear something in its sound that justifies the price disparity. I know that if didn’t hear any advantage that I would regret having spent the money. “Same playing field”? That one is tricky. If there were no differences in the sound between a cartridge like the Palladian and the Signet then the price discrepancy would not be justified. I have no doubt that there are many high priced MC’s that don’t sound, overall, as good as the Signet.

Thanks again.

Palladian/Garrott/MR5:

Not sure how one could quantify “how close” an inexpensive cartridge can come to the sound of the Palladian, but the Palladian is clearly in a different league than the other two.  It gives a much bigger dose of the natural timbre of instruments.  The sound of the triangle is an obvious one.  With the P it has an appropriate metallic brilliance and one hears a longer decay of its ring.  Other percussion instruments also sound more realistic.  With the Garrott it’s hard to tell that it is a cowbell being played.  With the P it is obvious.  One also hears more of the snap of the hand on the conga drum along with more of its woody timbre.

The MR5 gets closer to the level of the P than the Garrott which makes high frequency sounds too covered and dull.  The MR5 also sounds too covered by comparison, but less so.  Neither approach the level of overall clarity that the P has. 

Palladian/TK-7:

Holy Grail recording and one of my favorites.  Great recording and performance of this beautiful music.

Well, as with the Decca, I’m not prepared to say that the Palladian sounds $9,000 better than the less expensive cartridge; but, it sure sounds a lot better.  In fact, probably due to the more demanding nature of this music, I would say that I hear more of a disparity between the overall sound of the Palladian and that of the TK-7 than I did between the Palladian and the MR5 playing Marvin Gaye.

Right from the first woodwind chords one hears better clarity of timbre with the Palladian.  The TK-7 actually sounds as if it is on the verge of mistracking on the opening woodwinds with a hint of distortion at the end of each phrase where the winds play loudest.  The harp sounds much more realistic and one hears the correct urgency in the way that the player plays the arpeggios that answer the woodwinds.  The harp sounds beautiful with the Palladian; much more realistic color.  Not only is there more clarity in the upper range of the instrument, but notice to how the single plucked low notes on the left hand sound much more realistically resonant and one actually hears the decay of the sound of the vibrating string.  The clarinet player’s wonderful phrasing is much more clear in its subtle pushes and pull backs of the tempo.  With the TK-7 that phrasing and the overall musical energy seems more subdued.  The massed strings sound fabulous with the Palladian.  They sound good and beautifully full with the TK-7, but not quite as natural and I hear a similar effect as with the opening winds: as if it is on the verge of mistracking and a hint of distortion is heard in the loudest passages. 

The Palladian sounds like a killer cartridge.  Is it $9000 better?  I don’t know, but for the difference in price it should sound better...a lot better.  Speaking for myself, if I had it and the TK-7, while I like the TK-7 a lot it would spend a lot more time in the cartridge drawer than the Palladian.

Thanks for letting us hear these fabulous cartridges.  Listening was done on my Stax/tube driver set.

Sorry to disappoint, halcro.  I promise some thoughts on all by the end of the weekend.  Best to all.

Harold, I don’t doubt it at all and as we all know system context is very important. Curious, have you tried the AT 150 that the 180 was compared to? I haven’t owned either one, but would consider purchasing the 150 if I can find one; I think it would be a good fit in my system. BTW, I agree with you re the Acutex; I like it very much, but I wouldn’t call it magical either. Regards.

Victors:

Well, I am not prepared to say which is the best by listening to only one recording this way, but I am pretty comfortable saying which is my favorite: The X-1IIE. My least favorite: the X-1II

With both the X-1 and X-1II high frequencies sound overly prominent to the point of distraction and with excessive sibilance on the vocals. I like the X-1 very much for its very naturally colorful midrange. With the X1IIE the midrange is also naturally colorful, but high frequencies are much better controlled and balanced. Possibly as a result of this, vocals and the midrange in general sound fuller and more natural.

Perhaps it wasn’t clear from my earlier comments, and to reiterate and clarify: I think that the AT 180 is an excellent sounding cartridge.  My comments, as always, were about the subtle differences between it and the other cartridge (the 150) being compared.  By no means should my commemts be taken to suggest that I thought the 180 is a “bad” sounding cartridge.

Re the Sony/SPU Silver:

I agree with noromance’s comment that the SPU sounds thinner and more “spluttery” (love it!) on the pipes.  However, my feeling is that the SPU is doing a better job of telling us what is actually on the recording, splutter and all.  The first clue to this possibility is heard with the very first note of the recording.  The guitar sounds more realistic with the SPU, letting us hear a more appropriate metal “twang” on that first note and throughout the piece.  By comparison, the attack of the guitar plucks sound a little too round and covered with the Sony.  The Sony also has a rather bleached tonal character while the SPU lets us hear more of the natural colors of the instruments.  There is also more overall clarity with the SPU letting us more clearly hear the very gentle conga drum playing which gets a little lost in the background with the Sony.

To me the SPU sounds more realistic overall.  In the folk music (with some Baroque thrown in) style heard here pipes are normally played with the very prominent and almost percussive breath attack that we hear  The question becomes whether the SPU is exaggerating this splutteriness 😊 or not.  Given the SPU’s more realistic guitar sounds which normally have a lot of high frequency content and the slightly covered guitar sound of the Sony, my sense is that the SPU is the more accurate (to the recording) of the two.

**** To me....they sound almost identical !! ****

Ah, but you said “almost”; not, identical to. You did also say that to you the 180 “had the magic”. You clearly are hearing differences. So, how to describe what keeps them from sounding identical and one less magical? It always helps to somehow try and relate what one hears in audiophillic terms to the music. “Correct” terminology is secondary. I may have gotten more detailed in my descriptions, but all those details go under two general categories of types of details that noromance pointed out in his description: “clearer and with more insight”. We agree about the two cartridges and said essentially the same thing.

Listened on my Stax Lambda Pro Sig/T1 tube driver setup with IPad as the source. As always, acknowledging the limitations in listening this way.

Two terrific cartridges and nice recording. Possibly due to the overindulgence over the last couple of (Holy)days 🤪, but I actually enjoyed the recorded perfomance as I find that, while I like his songwriting very much, I have to be in the right mood to enjoy Leonard Cohen’s “singing”.

So interesting how we each react to certain qualities in recorded sound! For me, the magic is with the 150 and, interestingly, I hear a more realistic sense of “illumination” with the 150; although I am not sure that I would use term “technicolor” as a positive trait. The tonal balance of the 180 reminds me very much of my 170OCC: a little covered sounding with a little bit of thickness through the lower mids for a generally weightier and slightly dark balance. Both the 150 and 180 sound excellent overall; but, for me, definitely with important differences.

I prefer the general tonal balance of the 150 and the thickness of the 180 through the lower mids and upper bass is gone. With the 180 vocals (especially male vocals) sound too chesty and thick to me and the overall sound can border on the ponderous at times due to the somewhat prominent upper bass/lower mids.

To me, the 150 offers a better sense of clarity; the lightbulbs in the room were changed to 100W bulbs from the 60W bulbs used with the 180 😎. With the 150 one can actually sense the size of the space that the musicians are in; or, at the very least and more importantly, sense that they are in the same space. The 180 seems to constrict this space a little. When the saxophone solos the ambient envelope around him seems to expand and is larger compared to the 180, letting one know that he is on the same stage as the other musicians. I don’t hear as much of this effect with the 180. In live recordings in particular, when the sense of the space (the acoustic connecting tissue) that the musicians are in can be heard there is more clarity in the musical interaction of the musicians. To my ears even the sound of the audience has more clarity and I can better hear individual voices.

The 150’s sound is a generally leaner sound (some might even say “brighter”), but I think it is generally more realistic with a linearity that reminds me a little (!!!) of the Decca. The guitar solo has a little more incisiveness and there is a little more snap to the drummer’s brushes hitting the snare drum’s head for a generally better sense of the music’s forward momentum. I think that this is due in part to the absence of the lower mids “shadow” that accompanies midrange sounds when there is a little bit of excessive energy in the lower mid/upper bass range. When it is there it creates a subtle sense of slowing things down a little bit.

Both great sounding cartridges.

Thanks, halcro; and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Listened on my Stax/Lambda Pro Sig/T1 tube driver.

Well, I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that the Palladian sounds $9,890 better than the JVC, but it does sound better...a lot better. I really do wish I could say that the JVC sounds as good as the Palladian does to my ears; but, while it does sound decent, I just don’t think it is in the same league.

First, as I have opined previously, “there is no ’inherent’ superiority of one form of cartridge over another in my experience”. I agree with halcro’s comment completely. IN GENERAL, each technology seems to offer certain desirable characteristics. Personally, I don’t think that this JVC is a particularly good example of the general merits of MM’s. I am much less impressed with this one than the previous Victors heard. As always, the tuning and other characteristics of the rest of the audio system plays a major role in how well a given cartridge fits in.

To my ears the most obvious difference, and one immediately apparent, is that the Palladian controls the highs much much better. I could point out that the JVC sounds thin and splashy in the highs with a generally terrible (sorry) cymbal sound, but the best example is to listen to how it handles sibilant “s” sounds. Listen to the lyric “something” @ 1:44; or, “peace” (?) @ 1:54. The “s” sounds are distorted and splashy. With the Palladian (@1:45&1:55) the “s” is smooth, controlled and well integrated.

With the JVC, besides a cymbal sound (high-hat in particular) that gets distorted and pushed forward to the point of distraction the result of this characteristic is that the sound of other instruments get tilted in the direction of that zone of distortion. The guitars sound thinner with a little too much “twang” and less sense of the body of the instrument. Vocals sound less natural than with the Palladian which offers a generally smoother and meatier sound. At times I wished that the Palladian had a little less “meat” and a little more of the JVC’s faux clarity (distortion) in the highs, but I much preferred the overall balance of the Palladian. The JVC sounds a little fatiguing by comparison. Dynamic performance seemed comparable for the most part, although the distraction of the JVC’s splashy cymbal sound obscures some of the rhythmic interplay between the drums, bass and guitar for some reduction of rhythmic groove.  

Thanks, halcro.

Edit:

I just went back and reviewed my earlier comments (and halcro’s) re the other Victors heard previously. I loved the X1, I did not like the 4MD-1X as much, and I liked this 4MD-20X even less. Halcro feels that the 4MD-1X is “somewhat better” than the 4MD-20X. It all seems to make sense and is consistent.

I listened again on my Stax Lamda Pro/tube driver.  I had previously listened using brand new earbuds which I am realizing are definitely overly bright sounding.  With the Stax the MIT does not sound onjectionably bright, but pretty well balanced; and the Shure, as expected, sounds even more covered and dull sounding.  

I think that “speed” means different things to different listeners.  For me, speed is what I have previously tried to describe as “sense of aliveness”.  It is where the emotional component of music is found (heard).  Then there is the issue of how tonal balance influences perceived “speed”.  A cartridge that does not properly decode the high frequency information in the grooves might sound thick and tubby and the absence of a good leading edge will distort the rhythm component of music.  The MIT/Shure comparison is a good example of this.

No contest.  To my ears the MIT is a far superior cartridge.  Even though the balance is clearly tilted too far to the high frequencies it is, overall, much better at letting the drums sound like drums and not cardboard boxes and papery cymbals like the Shure does by comparison.  The excessive brightness would probably be a deal breaker for me ‘though.  The sound of the Shure is very much as I remember my Shure’s sounding in my system: grayish in color without enough brilliance and definition in the highs and an overall “soft” sound.  

The MIT’s soundstage sounds huge and expansive while the Shure’s seems smaller.  Even the space occupied by the live audience in the overall sound stage seems a lot smaller by comparison.  While the MIT’s excessive brightness distracts one can still hear the differences in timbre between the different drums and cymbals while the Shure homogenizes the various sounds.   I hear a bit of thickness in the lower mids that is similar to what I hear in my system when the xover point on my REL subs is set a few hertz too high; I lose a little midrange clarity.  

Thanks, halcro.

BTW, I do have some thoughts on the Signet/FR MC, some of which relate to the above.  

Good to see you back in action, Halcro. Hope that you and all here are well.

I agree wholeheartedly with Dover’s comments. I would describe what I hear somewhat differently, but the gist of it all is the same.

First and in full disclosure, as you may remember I have never been a great fan of AT/Signet cartridges. For years, I have tried to get truly satisfactory sound from, among other AT MM’s, my sample of the vaunted ATML170OCC and I have always been left dissatisfied. I bring this up because what I always hear from the ATML170 is precisely what I hear from the Signet on the Ellington (a recording I know well).

“Colored” means different things to different folks. I believe I understand what Dover means when he describes the Signet as “colored”. I would actually describe the sound as lacking in color...the richness and variety of natural tonal color that the sound of acoustic instruments have. I hear that colorless sound as having a pervasive “gray” cast that homogenizes the distinctive sound of instruments. “Colored” in gray. Timbral blandness. Btw, I hear a similar quality from most Shure cartridges that I have tried.

On the plus side. in spite of this tonal blandness, there is a welcome fullness in the midrange. I say welcome because the Sony sounds a little lean through the midrange and upper mids; and when the whole orchestra is playing, bordering on slight harshness (but not quite). With the Sony the clarinet’s naturally plush mid register sounds too lean, while with the Signet sounds more correct in this respect. However, I suspect that, just as with the sound of the flute heard here, the upper register of the clarinet would sound lacking in harmonics. The flute sounds too covered with the Signet; little sense of the sound of metal (silver). The Signet sounds lacking in air and the upper partials of the timbre of individual instruments. In general, the distinctive tones of the winds is much easier to recognize with the Sony; in spite of the perceived high frequency leanness. While there is seldom a way to confirm this, the Sony gives me a very strong sense that what I am hearing is what is actually on the recording and not the inherent sound of the cartridge. This may very well account for the “brittleness” that Dover hears, and what I hear as leanness through the upper mids. I believe this is a result of the mics and other recording equipment used. I hear this same quality playing this recording on my own system.

Even more so than the tonal issues the most important difference for me is with, and what Dover points out, the “timing”. To me, with the Signet just as with my ATML170 there is a perception that the performance is actually a little bit slower than with the Sony. There is a noticeable decrease in the wonderful propulsive and forward moving feeling of the rhythm section’s playing that one hears clearly with the Sony. With the Signet the music simply doesn’t move the same way; sounds almost static by comparison.

Btw, this example gave the best sense of “stereo” of any of your prior examples, Halcro. Much more clear left to right panning of instruments, whereas prior examples tended to mostly sound almost as in mono.

I won’t comment on the Bela Fleck track because I find too much of a volume inbalance between the two examples to make a fair judgment.

I suspect that in my all tube system, mounted on my ET2, the Sony would a no brainer.

Thanks, as always, Halcro and best to all.

...and fretless; for that distinctive singing sound. Great player, Victor Wooten. Some bass! 👍

Excellent observations and comments by Dover. His reactions to the three different cantilevers are almost exactly in line with mine and I rank the three in the same order.

For me, the Ruby ranks a distant third, sounding rough and less refined than the other two. That one out of the way, the choice between the Boron and the Sapphire is more interesting. Plainly put, for me, the Boron sounds more natural (realistic). The sapphire, while it "appears" more resolving in the highs, I hear as more generous in that range, but a range that is not as well integrated with the midrange. For me, a top end which is more generous will often tend to cause the midrange to seem less fully developed. The better integrated highs of the Boron help its midrange to sound more "fully developed". As far as overall tonal balance goes, in the context of a different system, one might easily be preferable to the other. In this context, he Boron wins for me.

Two observations that would tip the scale for me in favor of the Boron regardless of system context:

Listen to the kettle drum roll that one hears at the opening of the Prokofiev (thank you, Halcro) and its percussive accent on the arrival of the roll which is accompanied by the entrance of the low brass. With the Sapphire, I hear a hint of strain in the sound of demanding (loud/densely orchestrated) passages in the music. The Boron sounds a bit more composed (sorry) in those spots. While I suspect that it does, this may or may not be related to the second observation:

Listen to that great violin section beginning at :59. Wonderful musical passage with very exciting syncopated and accented notes intended to "jump out" of the overall texture of running sixteenth notes. With the Boron those accented notes leave that texture of running sixteenth notes more obviously and decisively....more music.

Interesting comparison as always, Halcro. Thank you.

Now, and please forgive me for this, but the subject of the Weavers’ song is a little too close to home (literally) for me to ignore. As we all know, that is a wonderful and wonderful sounding record. As wonderful sounding as is that "Guantanamera" , a beautiful song that is practically a second national anthem for Cubans, it leaves some to be desired on stylistic grounds. Here is a more stylistically authentic version; hope you enjoy it (or, at least appreciate it):

https://youtu.be/gdYIpvnzoW8

Both Ruby and Sapphire are the mineral Corundum. However, they each contain different amounts of trace minerals such as chromium which account for the differences in color, from red (Ruby) to blue (Sapphire); and shades in between. They each have a different molecular formula. So, technically, they are not “the same”.

Does single crystal oxygen free copper have an inherently different sound than plain old copper? Some feel it does. Both are copper....no? Why should it?

I don’t know. Jus’ sayin..

+1 Fela Kuti!  Check him out.

Halcro, me anti MM?  Not at all; way too strong a characterization.  I own several MM's and enjoy my Acutex'.  I recently purchased a M320 STR III that I have yet to mount.  While I obviously do have my preferences, it's probably fair to say that, overall, I have made about as many negative/positive comments about the MM cartridges presented here as I have about MC's.  With two notable exceptions, of course 😁.  Btw, the only MM's that I can honestly say "offend" me are the non-Ultra Shures. Can't stand their bland color-less presentation of timbre 😝. Come to think of it, it has been some of the vintage MC's that have offended me most with their overly tight and unnatural high frequencies:

At the risk of seeming indulgent; again, quotes from past comparisons.  May help clarify my general feelings about MM vs MC's and help answer your question about which MM (and MF) cartridges I have liked:

**** To my ears it is MM’s that tend to have a fuller, more tonally saturated sound; what I would describe as “lush”.  I have also found that the sometimes exaggerated high frequency “clarity” of some MC’s creates a better balance in my all-tube amplification chain which tends, itself, to be on the lush side.  Even the best of my MM’s can be a little too lush and dark in my system without enough clarity and control in the highs.  The problem for me is that while I love the midrange “neutrality” of good MM’s they tend to go a little too far in that direction; almost as if they rob timbres of some natural colors by seeming to reduce the high frequency extension needed to balance out the very full and dense midrange character.  MC’s tend to put the emphasis on clarity/detail in the highs leaving the midrange to sound too lean.  A very difficult balance to get right.  

Assessing dynamics is complicated since timbre neutrality affects our perception of it.  All I can say is that to me that wonderful “coiled spring” aliveness and sense of the music always moving forward is generally better served by good MC’s. ****

**** Audio Technica (180):

More distant perspective as if sitting further back in the room. The most linear and without the nasality. Tonally the most realistic. Colorless the way some Maggies are...probably too colorless; music has color. I want to say it’s my favorite, but the X1 is probably the most fun to listen with. ****

**** I think that the Glanz, overall, gives the Palladian the best “run for its money” of all of them.  

The Glanz is excellent and in some ways I like its tonal balance on the sound of the piano a little better than the Palladian which sounds a little “tinkly” at times.  This is a result or the Glanz having a fuller tonal balance which also adds more weight to the bass and a seductive dusky quality to the voice.  While the piano has more realistic weight it also has a less realistic timbre overall; it sounds a little odd in the higher registers and lacking a little natural brilliance. The extra weight in the bass makes the bass sound a little too thick and with less pitch definition than the Palladian.  Listen to the three note ascending bass line at 1:52 and the upward glissando at 1:59.  Less distinct than on the Palladian where one can more clearly hear the individual pitches of the notes.  The voice on the Palladian has a better sense of purity and refinement to my ears even if that dusky quality and extra chestiness one hears with the Glanz can be very appealing.  ****

Regards.

That’s a very good question, Halcro. First, not all my comments about the Victors have been positive. More on that in a moment.

My past positive comments have been mostly (if not entirely?) in comparison to cartridges other than the ones being compared this time around. I think I have been consistent in my appreciation and preference for the LDR and, to a lesser degree, the Palladian. So, any past positive comments about the Victor were not necessarily in an absolute sense and in comparison to lesser cartridges it does indeed have positive qualities.  Moreover, none of the other cartridges in past comparisons were (IMO) in the league of the LDR nor Palladian. Not to mention, and importantly, the music being played was different.

As I know you know, some cartridges (all gear) perform better than others when reproducing certain frequency ranges and/or specific difficulties in those ranges. To my way of thinking it is entirely possible that the way the Marley track was recorded presents specific difficulties in the highs that tax the abilities of a particular cartridge in ways that may not be an issue with other recordings or for other cartridges.

Having said all that, here is a comment I made on 1/03/2019 about the Victor X-1 II:

**** My least favorite: the X-1II. With both the X-1 and X-1II high frequencies sound overly prominent to the point of distraction and with excessive sibilance on the vocals. ****

This is my most recent comment (earlier today) about the X-1 II:

**** Both Victor and Sony exhibit way too much sibilance on the vocals and, the Victor in particular, an unnatural dryness in high percussion sounds. The Victor sounds downright harsh in that frequency range. ****

I would call that consistent.

Two other comments I made about the Victor in previous comparisons:

**** However, a little “Technicolor” and with a bit of nasality in the midrange. ****

**** The Victor (most of the Victors, so far) have a very juicy midrange/lower mids that, while very attractive, is not necessarily the most natural and is, in fact, what I would call “colored”. ****

With apology for the liberty taken, here is yesterday’s comment by Dover about the Victor:

**** Victor - it appears smoother here than my sample. On my system the Victor seems technicolored, as in false sharpness - oversatuated you might say if you were a photographer. ****

Again, I would call that consistent.

Why don’t I own one? In short, ET2. Perhaps (probably) unnecessary, but the combination scares me 😱; and I am not about to give up my ET2 😍.

Best wishes and thank you again.

Hope everyone is well and staying healthy. Thanks for another interesting comparison, Halcro.

The mighty Decca!

In short, as concerns sonic observations and conclusions I am in complete agreement with Dover. The most enjoyable and as I believe is in keeping with all my prior comments about this great cartridge:

**** musical enjoyment, and least distruction of musical timbre, timing etc. ****

In order of preference (per above standard)::

Decca

Palladian
Sony
Victor

(notice the double spacing after Decca 😉)

Both Victor and Sony exhibit way too much sibilance on the vocals and, the Victor in particular, an unnatural dryness in high percussion sounds. The Victor sounds downright harsh in that frequency range. I am tempted to say that the Sony would place second were it not for the harshness in the highs, but the slightly higher volume level (mismatch) of the Sony track compared to the others surely contributes unfairly to its perceived opulent quality (“bucketloads of detail”?). Where I disagree with Dover is that I don’t find the Victor enjoyable at all due to the unpleasant dryness in the highs and sibilance. While the prominence of these qualities crosses the line into harshness territory with the Victor, I wonder if the Sony’s somewhat softer way with these same qualities are what Dover hears as “graininess”?

The Decca is a killer cartridge, IMO. It handles the highs in a beautifully controlled way. Little or no unnatural dryness or harshness. With the Victor and the Sony there is a perception of so much activity in that range that the sibilance in the lead and background vocals, combined with the dryness and harshness in high percussion (high hat) create a kind of unpleasant sonic confusion. The Decca keeps things in order for better word intelligibility and overall musical ease. At the opposite end of the frequency spectrum, the Decca is more articulate and reveals more of the bass player’s wonderfully bouncy and propulsive musical contribution. The Decca simply sounds more like the real thing than the others.

For me, and as always, this “reality” is ultimately the deciding factor for preference of one over the other; and I am baffled by the reference to this “reality” as an “artifact”. Truth is that it takes (should take) much more destruction of musical information to keep one from enjoying a good music performance as deciphered by any one of these cartridges. We have our fun picking apart their different sonic presentations when they are all to a high standard. However, if the comparison must made, the Decca kills once again!

Best to all.

Man, I love the LDR! As I’ve commented previously, my favorite of all your fine cartridges, Halcro. Once again, for me and overall, the sound with the least amount of electronic artifacts as compared to the purity one hears in live sound. Beautiful sound!

Excellent comments by all and allowing for what I believe are simply personal semantics choices, I agree completely....with one caveat. Always nice to have agreement with other very astute listeners. I found Dover’s comment re the relationship between loading and capacitance very interesting.

At 15k: “nicer sound”, “coherency and timing”, “easier to follow” (!), “more controlled bass, less boomy”, “organizing” (!). I completely agree with those observations. I might describe what I hear the following way (semantics); and to get the caveat out of the way:

Dover is exactly right. While I do agree that the sound at 15k is smoother there are moments when I find the sound of strings to be “a little too warm” and rounded even if “more fleshed out”. However, this is subtle and handily compensated for by the superior coherency and better controlled and less boomy bass. A fascinating effect of 47K is that bass and organ seem to be thrust forward in the soundstage.  Besides sounding less controlled and somewhat boomy, the basses don’t occupy their correct place in relation to the upper strings, but are too forward both in placement as well as character. Likewise, the organ at times sounds to be in front of the orchestra as opposed to behind as it should. 47K seems to fragment the various sections of the orchestra (and organ) in an unnatural way. Soundstage is set back slightly at 15K compared to 47K’s more forward presentation. However, 15K “organizes” the sound in a more realistic way; more “coherent”, for a much more realistic sense of a typical orchestral “spread”. All this makes musical interplay “easier to follow” and gives a better sense of rhythmic impetus; ultimately, the most important considerations.

Excellent comments, gentlemen and thanks again to Halcro for the fascinating comparison.

Stay safe, all.

Re 1rst vs 2nd generation YouTube videos:

No comparison. Differences were so obvious and immediate that it seems almost pointless to describe in detail. I was taken aback the contrast as I wasn’t expecting it to be so great.

2nd generation, overall much lower "fi". Loss of detail in about every respect. Loss of highs, muddy mids and lows, shrunken soundstage both side to side and front to back. As a result and most importantly, obvious decrease in musical aliveness. Wow!

Fascinating our perceived differences between the Victor and Palladian, noromance. When I read your original comment describing the Victor as "crisper"/"cleaner" and the Palladian as more "euphonic", I had the same reaction as you; like the cartridges were swapped. I hear it as just the reverse. A semantics issue perhaps? I wlll even up the ante (so to speak) by pointing out that what I described as "subtle texture in the air around instruments" was not meant to suggest that the Victor had better air as you hear; just the opposite. I heard an extraneous texture in the spaces between instruments that the Palladian did not add. Palladian sounds cleaner to me and certainly not romantic, nor the Victor cooler; as I define the terms.

All very interesting and I don’t doubt for a moment that this is what you hear. Fascinating. Vive la differance!!