Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Looking forward to this next comparison.  Later.

With the Copperhead/Palladian initially the sound was so different - gutsy, big - it sounded a little messy. But once I adjusted to the balance for me the Copperhead/Palladian ( on my earbuds ) was just as quick but has a lot more resolution. The leading edge of the notes, decay and space around each instrument is far more resolved on the Continuum combo. I notice that bass notes on the Continuum combo have tremendous impact and start and stop on a dime, laying bare the acoustical space. On the SAEC there is speed in the upper end of the lower register, but it misses the leading edge and doesn’t really stop, just fades away. doesn’t seem to go as deep as on the Continuum. 

I can definitely understand why some listeners might prefer the Palladian’s spatial boldness and bass power to the Decca’s more organized and “neater” approach to imaging and sound staging.
At first the greater bass power and sheer bigness of it is impressive,

DENON'S involvement with moving coil cartridges dates back to the 1930s when they were engaged in a joint R&D effort with NHK to produce a high performance and high reliability cartridge for broadcast use. The legendary DL-103 moving coil phono cartridge was introduced in 1963, which became one of the longest running products in audio history. 
Denon collaborated with the Japan Broadcasting Corporation Technical Research Laboratories in 1963 to make this extremely reliable, high-performance low-output phono cartridge. As the first moving coil cartridge, the DL-103 will always be the standard of reliability in every aspect, even the price.

There is more drive and menace in what I hear from it.

Hi Halcro - in my view, even on standard mac ibuds/Macair,  it's quite easy to here significant differences between the XL88 & XL88D.

In some ways the 1st comparision was more revealing - the base line on the XL88D has much better timing and resolution. The XL88 by comparison has no timing at all on the base line, its all over the place. There is more information around the base line in paricular, harmonic fulness and detail. The high frequencies on the XL88D are crisper and appear to be significantly more transparent.

On the second recording again the timing is better, more transparent through the while range, by that I mean you can hear more body, harmonic completeness and sustain and decay of notes. Piano is  much more purposeful on the XL88D ( and more real ).

As an aside, on your comparision of the Palladian and XL88 on the other thread the mid to top end of the XL88 sounded identical to the old Madrigal Carnegie on baroque music both of which I listen to a lot. The Carnegie was a Sony XLMC9 rebadged. Your comment about "vintage cartridges" is a little misnomer as Sony Soundtech designed these cartridges to be the ultimate analogue ( triple layer cantilevers of boron/carbon & aluminium, newly designed figure 8 coil layout and the Sony motor design was adopted by both Van den hul & Benz. The Early Van den hul MC1/Benz Ref/Carnegie are virtually identical.

I do note however the bass being still a little vague on the SAEC/XL88 on the baroque ( noticeable because the mid to top end is so good ) and would encourage you to find a lighter more rigid headshell - these Sony's are medium compliance and their suspensions are not robust. Again I believe the Cobra tonearm would provide the same improvements with the Sony XL's as you experienced with the Palladian over the SAEC.

I know from personal experience the Sony XL88D performed extremely well on the Dynavector tonearm I own, significantly better than on the SAEC 407/23 used on the same turntable.

Finally, congrats on the acquisition of the XL88D, one day it will be no more, but at least you have had the pleasure of hearing it for a while, a very special cartridge.

First, I agree entirely with Dover’s excellent observations re the differences between the sound of the two Sony cartridges. I might describe the differences heard somewhat differently, but I think that we are hearing the same things. For instance, his observation of the superior “timing” of the 88D, I would describe as the standard 88 having comparatively wooly bass with a sense of uncontrolled overhang. This causes it to have inferior pitch definition and clarity of bass notes compared to the 88D. Good pitch definition and clarity are key aspects of good musical timing. A rather wordy description of what Dover later described succinctly as more “articulate”. In all, I agree with his observations re the 88D’s superior clarity and, most important for me, superior “harmonic completeness”; the timbre of instruments, saxophone and trumpet in particular, sound closer to real.

Apologies if I have missed commentary on this point, but I think that in the quest for determining what the absolute “best” cantilever material is, not enough has been made of the fact that the cantilever material that is best for one cartridge may not be the best choice for another cartridge that uses a different motor and a different housing; all which contribute to the overall sonic signature of the cartridge as determined by the designer’s goals. Different motors offer different levels of resolution and have certain general tonal signatures just as different cartridge housings have different sonic signatures due to their particular resonance characteristics. I am certainly no expert on phono cartridges and my experience with them is certainly very limited compared to the OP’s and many here, but looking at the Sony I see a cartridge with a rather large and boxy housing constructed largely of plastic. Just an observation not meant as a criticism; clearly it is a great cartridge. To my simplistic way of thinking it would be no surprise that a cartridge with a housing that APPEARS to be less rigid and possibly more resonant than one which is more compact and rigid would benefit from a diamond cantilever with its higher degree of rigidity. The same very rigid cantilever/stylus on a cartridge with a motor and/or housing which may have inherently leaner sonic characteristics may not be the best choice for a particular cartridge designer’s goals.

Congrats on your new cartridge, Halcro; would love to hear a comparison of the 88D and the Palladian playing acoustic (orchestral?) music. Thanks for another interesting thread.

I must say that I am quite taken aback with the excellence of the sound of the Sony.

As a result there is a greater sense of separation of the instruments in the room’s acoustic while the Palladian seems to “crowd” them together.

I loved the sound of the Sony and I think you are justified in your excitement over it. I would love to hear it playing something more complex than this music to see how it handles a full orchestra for instance. A three way shootout between the Sony, Palladian and Decca? 😃

At this point I am done with comparisons - could you please just send me the Sony for Xmas.

Thanks, Halcro for another interesting comparison and tell Princi “nice haircut”.

Usually, an actual signal being picked up from a rotating LP is the best way to excite the resonances in the playback system. After all, it duplicates the real use scenario almost perfectly.
However, it is impossible to truly separate the headshell’s performance from that of a tonearm while the headshell remains attached.

What I can clearly hear from your videos (iphone+iphone earbuds) is that 88D is more transparent, open, and direct and DLR, however surprising, more recessed and somewhat muddier, less convincing.

Ry Cooder sounded better on the Raven. The music was more coherent. The Victor was brighter but it was a mess.
Dire Straits however was the opposite. Dull and plodding on the Raven, lively and musical on the Victor.

Halcro -
I am not sure if you are having me on.

There is significantly more surface noise with the carbon fiber headshell.
It is possible the VTA is not the same on both shells.

In some parts the cf on violins becomes quite screachy, compared to the FRS3 less so.

For me the FRS3 is more musically listenable because the better presentation of tempo in the lower ranges underpins the musical flow and enjoyment.

JMAS seems to have a cleaner midband, more transparent and less congested upper bass.

YouTube currently streams in 128 kbps ACC in an MP4 container when you select the Normal quality. Premium subscribers can also select the High quality, which streams at 256 kbps AAC (equal quality to GPM's 320 CBR kbps).

And yet the price differential between the ’cheapest’ Onyx and dearest Blue Lace is $5000!!!!!