Hear my Cartridges....🎶


Many Forums have a 'Show your Turntables' Thread or 'Show your Cartridges' Thread but that's just 'eye-candy'.... These days, it's possible to see and HEAR your turntables/arms and cartridges via YouTube videos.
Peter Breuninger does it on his AV Showrooms Site and Michael Fremer does it with high-res digital files made from his analogue front ends.
Now Fremer claims that the 'sound' on his high-res digital files captures the complex, ephemeral nuances and differences that he hears directly from the analogue equipment in his room.
That may well be....when he plays it through the rest of his high-end setup 😎
But when I play his files through my humble iMac speakers or even worse.....my iPad speakers.....they sound no more convincing than the YouTube videos produced by Breuninger.
Of course YouTube videos struggle to capture 'soundstage' (side to side and front to back) and obviously can't reproduce the effects of the lowest octaves out of subwoofers.....but.....they can sometimes give a reasonably accurate IMPRESSION of the overall sound of a system.

With that in mind.....see if any of you can distinguish the differences between some of my vintage (and modern) cartridges.
VICTOR X1
This cartridge is the pinnacle of the Victor MM designs and has a Shibata stylus on a beryllium cantilever. Almost impossible to find these days with its original Victor stylus assembly but if you are lucky enough to do so.....be prepared to pay over US$1000.....🤪
VICTOR 4MD-X1
This cartridge is down the ladder from the X1 but still has a Shibata stylus (don't know if the cantilever is beryllium?)
This cartridge was designed for 4-Channel reproduction and so has a wide frequency response 10Hz-60KHz.
Easier to find than the X1 but a lot cheaper (I got this one for US$130).
AUDIO TECHNICA AT ML180 OCC
Top of the line MM cartridge from Audio Technica with Microline Stylus on Gold-Plated Boron Tube cantilever.
Expensive if you can find one....think US$1000.

I will be interested if people can hear any differences in these three vintage MM cartridges....
Then I might post some vintage MMs against vintage and MODERN LOMC cartridges.....🤗
halcro

Showing 21 responses by noromance

I listened again on my all tube/Spendor/REL S30 rig. Amazing how it now sounds so more like a recording in free space compared to my headphones. I'm sure I heard your dog bark. I am convinced the Raven adds a golden warmth to the reproduction. There is also a thickening in the upper bass and lower mids. You played the AS on your SAEC arm in 2019, and it doesn't have that sound on the Victor. I also heard an album I know intimately on a Raven (Basis table?) at AXPONA '19 and that aspect was there then too. So, I can't be certain how the actual cartridges perform in their own right. 
I used reasonably good over the ear headphones on my phone. It's weirding me out! I'm going to have to try on PC to my second rig downstairs later. Keep well.
I agree with @frogman on the piano being recessed somewhat and the better air around instruments on the Victor. However, in other aspects, it's as if he's listening to swapped versions of what I hear. I hear the Palladian as romantic and euphonic, and even colored, overly saturated and dense. The Vic sounds like someone is in the room - clean, neutral, airy, transparent. The Palladian like it's been studio enhanced. Admittedly, there are qualities of warmth and woody tone with the MC, and the piano is definately more present. I just prefer that cooler, more honest rendering of the MM.
I prefer the DD rendition of both pieces. Admittedly, there is a little more euphony with the Raven but I prefer the cleaner and crisper Victor. Frogman’s astute observation is of note too. I wonder if this is why the LDR never quite sounded 100% on the Raven-something I have pointed out before. Interesting...
On my phone. Signet for me. Better separation of instruments and easier to follow the melodies weaving through the piece.
Thanks @frogman. I listened to both again and while acknowledging the Sony has more initial bite, things quickly fall apart when things get going. The Signet also gives an initial perception - that of being a little muddy and gray... but then the lower-end grunt lets you know it’s not messing around! Further listening through the Signet lets you into the construction of the music. I once had a Croft 4S power amp. It was finely detailed and warm and I enjoyed it. One day a friend hauled an early 90 pound Michelson & Austin TVA KT88 monster up the stairs. Hearing the same music through it was a revelation. Gone was the enveloping warmth and detail, replaced with a new, unprepared for coherence, neutrality and most importantly, insight. In the same manner, the Sony is not unlike that Croft amp. And the Signet is the M&A.
Lost long post.
Long story short.
Sony just plays it, Signet tells the whole story. Better bass, drive, clarity, delineation, and purpose. 
Thanks to your video, I held off buying a used Reference. And I run a SG/p as you know. 
The Signet is more forward with better air and is sweet as a nut.
I believe it's compliance is high but the FR66 is high mass. I wonder if this is causing excessive brightness.
The Decca is amazingly less dynamic and immediate sounding in comparison. Which makes me a little suspicious as to the accuracy of the Signet.
That notwithstanding,  the Signet sounds very musical with lots more detail.
Ha! Thanks for the smile, frogman.
I have the mono original of Love Letters. Now, I'll have to dig it out and see how it sounds on my Decca SG/P.
Decca - Clean, open, uncolored, unveiled, musical, emotional. Ketty is in the room.
FR - Nice (damned already!), musical in a warm and slightly irritating way, veiled by comparison, bass seems deeper but not quite as clear.

I listened to the MIT/Victor again - this time on PC/headphones. The MIT didn’t sound as good as this time - therefore aligning me more towards the Victor - with the caveat that there was more detail in the MIT.
You sure the Decca works well at 15k? Some say 33k, or 47k. But what about 1meg? You may be surprised.
Golly. That is interesting. Apologies for my musical ignorance compared to @frogman . Again this is just through my phone speaker.

MM - very easy to follow the basic melody of the piece. Clean sounding. Maybe even more dynamic. But that could be because fine detail is missing which may be swamping the system. 

MC - initially sounded more cluttered by lots of additional information. Sustains and harmonics were elaborate. As the piece progressed, I could hear the colors of the instrument. Different timbres made it come alive. There was a fuller, richer bass. I much preferred this. I did think there was some over-saturation at times on some chords which didn’t sound right but I’ve no reference point.

PS. Your speakers seem too close to the turntables and right wall. Too far apart? The sofa in the middle and glass table are objects I would remove. 
From my phone. Prefer the JMAS.
Why? At 1:15-1:30, there is a simple melody that is easily followed on the MIT1. On the P77, it falls apart.
The MC has more detail and longer sustains.
However, the MM has a somewhat cleaner, more neutral sound. There is some steeliness to the sound.
LOL. 
Keep 'em coming. Love hearing these.
The truth is that a great table and arm will make inexpensive cartridges sing. 
I listened to the track on Tidal and the tweets are NOT there. I think it's his phone!
From a quick listen on phone speaker.
MC is lush, sweet, detailed, and colored.
MM is clear, neutral, spacious, easy to follow.
Lisrened 3 times to each alternating between the recordings.
Initial reaction was:
1. Palladian - Where did the band go?
2. Z1 - Where did the strings go?
The Palladian sounded very syrupy while the Z1 had better air and sou ded cleaner. 

Interesting. Love the Albinoni Adagio. The X1 reminds me of the older Decca C4.Â