@lewm
Thanks for the info, I was aware of the science on this, and use them myself in this application. It was the $$$ silver grounding cables I'm less sure about. Do you have any experience with the original non magnetic shinkoh tantalum resistors in the signal path with tube preamps ? I have enough to replace the signal resistors in my Marantz 7 but have never got around to it. I use nude vishays for loading.
|
@halcro
1st imression at 47k was a bit of a surprise for me, with several Garrot Decca Golds under my belt, the LDR was a lot smoother at 47k than the Decca Golds of old at 47k - they were rip your ears off.
Having said that moving to the 15k, for me the variations are quite noticeable ( even on Mac earbuds ). At 15k the string sections are not only more fleshed out but the coherency and timing, particularly in the upper bass/lower mid area is much crisper and more rhythmically coherent.
Frogman can comment on instrument accuracy, he might suggest a little too warm on some sections of the orchestra, but for me the timing and coherency at 15k easily outstrips 47k, the music far better communicated and more enjoyable at this setting.
With the old Garrott modded Deccas I preferred 22k - have you tried this value with the LDR ? |
Observations - Victor XI - enoyable to listen to but horribly coloured. Enjoyment wears off rapidly due to the colourations. Sony XL88D - wondered why it sounded so grainy, then I went to the start and confirmed Victor/SAEC combo. Sorry Halcro - this cartridge in my view needs to go on the Cobra/Raven. Bucketloads of musical detail, nuance, but grain prevented enjoyment. If you cant put it on the Cobra, try the Dynavector. I think you will find the Dynavector puts flesh on the bones and much more solid foundation than the SAEC. The XL88D was mounted on my TT in the early 80's - the SAEC/Audiocraft arms were easily surpassed by the Dynavector/Sony combo. ( see TAS vol 8 June 1983 ). Decca - most enjoyable Palladium - disappointing on this track. Seems coloured, closed in, lacking openness. Many have difficulty understanding those of us who have multiple cartridges (let alone multiple turntables and arms) as most people assume that you would listen only to the BEST cartridge in any collection. As an owner of many cartridges/arms/turntables, I would temper that by saying that the various combos have to be to a common standard. I find in practise that if a cartridge is too coloured or idiosyncratic, I lose interest in listening. I don't hold the view that there is a single 'BEST' cartridge out of the thousands that have been produced over the last 50 years or so 🤔 True, nothings perfect, but in sifting through the options I look for musical enjoyment, and least distruction of musical timbre, timing etc. Very few do it in reverse and change out an 'old' MC to replace it with a 'new' MM design.... I did. After following Rauls MM/MC thread for some time I purchased a Victor X1 ( mint with original cantilever/stylus ) and Glanz MFG61. Dont listen to either of them any more. The only non MC's I would listen to long term would be the Decca and upper end of Soundsmith range which I like. |
@halcro
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. On your demo it is easier to listen to. What I mean by coloured is it appears to sound warm and comfy, but lacks openness and upper frequency extension. Remember the old Quad filters where you could tip the top down and bottom up. I dont know the record, so I dont know if this is correct.
Sony XL88D sounds very grainy compared to your earlier demos. Maybe your VTA is out. I think we hear the same thing though - you describe it as "extended detail" to me sounds more open ( irrespective of actual detail ). Please check your tracking weight and VTA, somethings not right. I assume nothing else has changed in your system. Have you had other cartridges on the arm since we last heard the Sony ??
At least we can agree on the Decca, so all is not lost.
As an aside I have been rolling through a few cartridges on my FR64S lately, primarily to see whats worth keeping, and one learning was that it is so much easier to clean cartridges when you can take the headshell off. Honestly I dont think it is possible to properly clean a cartridge without removing it.
|
Hi @halcro
Yes, differences are audible. At first I used Mac Air no headphones, but changing to iphone earbuds was more illuminating and in some instances changed preferences. I dont like headphones on my head, hence the earbuds, but I have started listening to your posts with Music Hall debe headphones I got for free - apparently they retailed for $200.
Re the aforementioned 3012R thread, I own the Hillary Hahn album "Retrospective" that was used for some of the comparisons and in my system the resolution is way beyond what I could hear via the posted videos - the most graphic example being just before the Max Richter track commences I hear the movement of the seated audience as they shuffle around in their seats, this is completely missing on the videos posted. So there are limitations as I would have expected in posting videos, but the comparisons are still informative.
Regards MM's and LOMC's I'll keep it short. 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. Having said that I do quite like MI's - Garrot Decca is an alltime favourite. I really liked the London Reference you posted. The Glanz MFG61 is very good - its Moving Flux - and can hold its own with good MC's in my system. I also have a friend who for years used $300 Grado's in a megabuck system, his theory was throw it out once or twice a year and you are good to go - listening to music was always enjoyable. I also have heard the full range of Soundsmith including the strain guage cartridge a few years ago when Peter Lederman visited NZ - to me his moving iron cartridges are very muscial at all price points. I own a Victor X1 with original cantilever & stylus and I find it impressive but tiresome to listen to - I think the expression is too saturated if you are into photography. For years I've had Shure V15vmr & vmxr - they work well in both my ET2 and Dynavector arms.
I agree with you on MM's with the Dynavector arm. My Shure V15vxmr & vmr worked exceptionally well on this arm. Fwiw I revisted this arm before Xmas and it is currently in its final rebuild stages - I have altered the angle of the sub arm and pivot to stylus so I can run Baerwald as standard and the cartridge is dead straight in the headshell, in line with the vertical bearings. It took some effort to work it out but basically if you remove the rear bolt holding the subarm you can change the angle of the sub arm. By triangulating the pivot to stylus/offset angle I was able to set it up so that if you use the standard Dynavector overhang gauge you have perfect Baerwald every time. This requires the ability to adjust the mounting position on your TT. My test results were superb hence the rebuild including rewiring to finish it off. I drilled and tapped a third hole for anchoring the rear of the sub arm for stability (replacing the orignal rear screw). Not for the fainthearted but great improvement over Stevenson.
Re the FR7fz/Palladian - on the first track it was ups and down. To my ears the Palladian has a much more open soundstage particularly in the vocal area, more articulated bottom end. What bothered me on this track was I found the upper mid lower treble "pressured" on the Palladian and get the impression I would not listen to music much with this combo.
On the second track its like the musicians are giving different performance - her voice is plaintive with the Palladian, on the FR her voice is fuller more robust. Going back and forth with the instruments again you get a different view on how they are playing - to me there is a huge difference. Which is right I do not know because I wasn't there, but I prefer the FR for its musicality overall and sense of ease. (subject of course to the limitation of my headphone set up).
If I was second guessing HP of TAS I would summarise the FR as wonderfully engaging and the Palladian as fatally flawed in the upper mid - or is it that Direct Drive showing its archilles ????. To be continued........
Palladian on the FR/Raven would reveal all.
Will be interesting to get Frogmans diagnosis.
|
After the earlier FR-7 and FR-7f, the final version FR-7fz came with an advanced nude LINE-CONTACT diamond pressure-fitted to an aluminium cantilever and cost an incredible 120,000 Yen in 1984. The FR7fz was only 80,000 yen in 84. By comparison my Dynavector Karat Nova 13D was 150,000 yen in 83 as was the Sony XL88D, both of which have been auditioned on my TT. The Karat Nova 13D remains my reference. The most expensive FR7 was the "f/c" at 100,000 yen. http://20cheaddatebase.web.fc2.com/needie/NDFR/FR-7fz.htmlI think the Palladian is a mismatch with the SAEC WE8000 - it is at the top end on the recommended tracking weight and cartridge weight, too much energy for knife edge bearings. Would be interesting to hear the Palladian in the same arm as the FR7fz, ie on the FR66. There appears to be mistracking on the 1st album with the WE8000/Palladian combo. |
@halcro
Thanks for the feedback, I’m pleased my rantings saved you from potential disaster. The Dynavector Karat Nova series are obstensibly defunct. I know from personal contacts directly with the factory that they ran out of Karat Nova 13D generators for rebuilds around 2002. I was graced with good fortune some years later when they agreed to rebuild mine for the third time on a one off basis. This has been great because the last rebuild they did for me sported a microridge stylus which has pushed the performance/transparency way beyond my Ikeda Kiwame & Decca levels. It’s sad because when this goes - its done. Unfortunately I have noticed several Karat Novas for sale in recent years but they have clearly had a non standard cantilever/stylus. The telltale sign is usually the cantilever which sticks out a mile compared to the original which is tiny and is barely seen below the body. I have been contacted by some folk to verify Karat Nova’s and have followed up with Dynavector directly in Japan but they are too embarrassed to even answer. Beware the "prototypes" being sold on Yahoo Japan.
The diamond cantilever on the Karat Novas has a Y shaped yolk at the end into which the stylus is glued. It is possible to retip a Karat Nova but the chances of the yolk breaking when removing the original tip is very high.
The Sony XL88D is in the same category, one piece diamond cantilever cannot be retipped.
Final Audio also commissioned a version of the XL88D from Yoshimura, there were 2 iterations =, one a full diamond cantilever/tip the other a 1/2 length diamond cantilever/tip mounted in an aluminium sleeve.
Like you I am puzzled by the FR-7fc model being the most expensive FR7 yet a "conical" stylus. Syntax has one and rates it at the top ofthe FR tree. It appears to have been targeted at the vintage record collector. I know that Isamu Ikeda was a bit like Van den Hul in that he produced a lot of one off variants of the FR7 for record collectors or specific musical tastes. I have seen for example FR7’s optimised spicifically for early stereo Jazz. Sugano likewise.
I have been following your cartridge postings - they are great. I have the Glanz MFG61 and was interested in getting a flavour of the 610 you have.
Re the 3012 - yes I have been folowing that thread you referred to. They like the SME3012R which has a higher mass stainess steel arm tube compared to the 3012 Series 1 & II. In my view the SME has a charm and musical presentation that is compelling but to my ears is not the most transparent arm available by some margin. So if someone prefers its musically to other arms I would not disagree, however I like to hear everything possible in the groove. One of the issues with vintage knife bearing arms is that due to the offset angle of the cartridge, and the non offset vertical knifebearings, the forces on the cantilever try to rotate the arm, effectively trying to lift one side of the 2 knife bearings. Added mass helps. Ikeda, the designer of your FR7fz eschewed the use of unipivots for his low compliance cartridges and knife edge bearing tonearms along with jewelled bearings which he regarded as fragile sounding.
I have a 3012, - it sits on the shelf in my study.
The previous owner of my Final TT had many arms for review in the 80’s. I know he tried the SAEC407/23 and found it to be lightweight sounding, lacking bass definition on a wide range of top end cartridges - both high and low compliance. Of the cartridges tried the Sony XL88D was the least affected by this wispy attribute. It is a medium compliance MC cartridge. I have not heard the 8000. You might want to try your XL88 on your SAEC.
I am a great believer in arm/cartridge combinations as a unit - hence why I still have Dynavector/FR64S/Naim Aro/Eminent Technology ET2 arms and several other arms which I keep in rotation, simply because finding the best arm for each cartidge I have is one of those itches you have to scratch. |
@frogman Interesting - we agree on track 1. However on the Nina Simone I can hear the better resolution on the Palladian, but I’m getting more grunt from her lower registers coming from the abdomen - example .51 to 1.06 where she draws the note out and you hear more of the abdomen/lower chest with the FR. More expressive. At the end of the note on the Palladian she is tailng off, whereas with the FR she pushes out the last of the note from deeper down. Of course we dont know which is more correct since we were not there. I changed to air buds and the same result, although the upper mid lower treble "pressure"that I alluded to on track 1 is lessened on the air buds from the music hall debe’s. The debe’s may have problems in that area. 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”. Yes I can hear the nasal quality you mention, on both cartridges, slightly more noticeable on the FR, it sounds almost like she has a slight cold, but I am still hearing more lower register from her voice with the FR as per my previous example. I still think there is more vocal nuance with the FR on this track, which is the opposite from the first track. ( subject to the vagaries of my computer/headphones). One of the imponderables is the impact of microphone distortions from the early mikes. Could be VTA differences between records that might explain differences between track 1 & 2 on the 2 cartridges. I’m going to run it through my system either tonight or tomorrow and do another take. @halcro - to avoid having to see your therapist - they are both pretty good. |
@harold-not-the-barrel
The discussion on Glanz has inspired me to pop my Glanz MFG61 back in the system. I have completed some subtle upgrades to my system in the past year. A couple of months ago I managed to wipe out my Koetsu Black Goldline which I was using on an FR64S/B60 for non critical listening.
Well, the Glanz MFG61 has left the koetsu well and truly dead - more refined, more linear to use Frogmans language), quicker and more transparent. It gets much closer to my reference Dynavector Nova 13D in spectral balance and accuracy.
The MFG61 has different specs to the 610LX - different compliance, better channel separation, and finer stylus profile. From Halcro’s earlier posting, not withstanding whats lost in translation ( to video/digital ), my impression is that the 61 sounds much more refined and less course than the 610LX.
PS
Halcro - thanks for the Decca post for Frogman and I - I have been a bit busy to respond - the music was great.
|
My Glanz MFG61 has the same cantilever as in Chaksters picture in the Glanz thread. Cant tell whether it is hollow or not. Compliance of MFG61 is 25x10(-6) @10hz,. 610LX is 10x10(-6)@100hz. You cant accurately compare these, but the likely compliance of the 610LX @10hz is probably around 15-20 - slightly lower than the 61. Channel separation on the MFG61 is 25db@1khz, MFG610LX is 23db@1khz.
No such cartridge as the Nova 17D3. The Karat Nova 13D was only produced in a small run ~40 years ago - mine has been rebuilt/upgraded by Dynavector Japan several times - its a one off. It's resolution exceeds both my Ikeda Kiwame & Garrott Bros Decca Gold with Microscanner.
If I was to replace the Karat Nova 13D it would have to be the XV1T. |
All of the above cartridges, except for the Type III models, have Shure’s Dynamic Stabiliser brush, which damps tonearm/cartridge resonance, short circuits record static electricity to ground, and removes dust from ahead of the stylus. I preferred both my V15vxmr & V15vmr with a brazillian and a dab of superglue on the stylus holder - as used in my Eminent Technology ET2. Accurate tonearm set up, properly grounded TT & clean records obviate the need for heath robinson type solutions. |
Hi Halcro
for me on my cheapo ear iPhone plugs -
Shure V15/III/SAS - full bodied but coloured sound
Shure Ml140HE - slightly recessed in the vocals, clangy in the upper mid area
Shure Ultra 500 - the least coloured by far of the three, the balance across the frquency spectrum far more even, and more resolution. On crescendos this cartridge holds that balance. This is significantly better than the other two to my ears, more open, more balanced and less coloured.
If you really want to hear the Ultra 500 at its best you need to buy yourself an Eminent Technology ET2, a significant gain in performance cf the Dynavector/FR64 to be sure - I own all 3.
I'm not convinced your lovely dog is a Linda Rondstadt fan though. |
Halcro, its interesting. I have found with multiple turntables and cartridges that ultimately I come down to a strong preference. I find that once I have identified shortcomings in a cartridge then it becomes unistenable, all I hear are the shortcomings. I'm not so hard on the Shures like Frogman, I did manage to listen to a Roksan/Final Audio ET2/Shure V15vxmr for about 10 years whilst having an audio hiatus.
On the other hand I simply cannot stand my original mint Victor X1,
use to enjoy the Koetsu Black with Zeta, but my latest one sounds stodgy most of the time in my current system. A lot of it comes down to system matching as well, particularly step up/phono characteristics.
Would like to hear the Dyanvector XV1S (original ) vs the Decca if you are inclined. I have not had the opportunity to hear the Dynavector XV series in a system I know..
|
Hi Halcro,
Well my impression, the Palladian is a cut above, less coloured, more even handed/balanced across the spectrum. The Palladian appears to be much quicker and more resolving - first impression is it is quicker, on long term listening the instruments relate better to each other, the interplay between the various sections of the orchestra seem more coherent to me and on point with this cartridge.
The Ortofon Century/FR7f offer more colour and drama at the expense of coherence. The FR7f appears to me tighter and more resolving of individual notes whilst being truncated in the top end than the Ortofon - you hear more of the space around the piano notes for example. The Century whilst being more open in the upper mid/top end than the FR7f, it still doesn’t resolve the fundamentals as well. The Ortofon on long term listening reminds me of an old tonearm ( nameless but rhymes with tisme ) that has a charm/exhuberance, that if you listen to for some time, it becomes endearing and might be attracted to, colourations and all.
But for me the Palladian is too quick, the others cannot complete.
And then there is the Decca...
PS Nice little cameo by Princi on castanets. |
Halcro,
Probably yes. Just reinforcing the TT/Tonearm/Cartridge hierarchy. I still see many folk here putting expensive cartridges on cheap TT's & arms.
Having said that tonearm matching would be a critical part of selecting a $10k cartridge for me, even if it meant buying a new arm. I would want to buy a cartridge of that quality only if I could maximise its potential.
BTW I still have some reservations re the Palladian/SAEC combo - on the recording posted I feel the lower half of the piano register is a little vague and lacks incisiveness compared to the reproduction of the same piano above middle C. I would like to hear the Palladian on the FR ( I would assume Dieter has voiced this cartridge with this type of arm in mind ) and/or Cobra if at all possible with the same piece of music - I think that would be quite informative.
|
Halcro,
The answer is that depends. I wouldn't buy the Palladian unless I had a top flight tonearm. If you are looking for some of the atrributes of the Palladian ( speed and coherence ) for $2k a couple of possibilities are the London Decca range - Maroon to Gold or possibly the Dynavector 17DX ( short diamond cantilever ). The LDR is $5k.
Key question on value is how does the $10k Palladian compare to the current $15k crop of cartridges.
|
@halcro
Wow - that was quick. You wouldn’t know these were the same cartridge if you hadn’t labelled them. This is why I have 4 decent tonearms.
I’m very interested in what you think yourself as well as @frogman .
For me on this particular piece of music the SAEC/Palladian initial impression is quick and fluid, very light/tight on overall orchestral balance.
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. There is a "grey wash" across the spectrum with the SAEC, this is not there with the Copperhead.
Initially I thought the SAEC was more coherent overall, but I think this is partially an illusion from the lightweight balance. Again as I adjusted to the vastly different presentation of the Copperhead this impression disappeared, the Copperhead was quick, fast and coherent.
For me the Palladian would stay on the Copperhead. It’s an easy decision.
Thanks so much Halcro for going the extra mile it really demonstrated the importance of tonearm/cartridge matching. Copernicus returns !
|
@halcro cc @frogman Hi, apologies for tardiness, still waiting for the Baroque !! For the 1st comparison Palladian vs Sony I was quite shocked at what appears to me ( ibuds as usual ) considerably more resolution with the Sony. Is it my imagination or not - compared to the previous clip with the Sony XL88D - the Sony appears to have fleshed out and opened up, like it is still runnning in. If it has been on the shelf for a long period as the suspension limbers up you may have yet more to come. Agree with Frogmans observations, but I would add that the Palladian to my ears homogenises individual instruments and their harmonic structures and overtones merge together, whereas the Sony keeps the individual instruments clearly separated and the individual harmonic structures, overtones of each instrument etc remain attached to those respective instruments ( each retaining its character ). For me the Sony is vastly more transparent, reminding me of what I briefly heard some 30 years ago. Each instrument exists within its own space. The one area where I feel the Palladian MAY have the upper hand is in how it portrays subtle phrasing details. The little rhythmic pushes and pulls by the viola da gamba player at times seem to have just a little bit more energy and musical purpose with the Palladian. Along the same lines, the performance at times sounds ever so slightly slower with the Sony. All this is EXTREMELY subtle and I think it is probably a psychoacoustic effect of the Sony’s more fleshed out and richer tonal qualities. Often, a leaner tonal signature gives the illusion of greater speed. This reminds me of an experience many years ago, when upgrading a cartridge to one that was vastly more transparent I thought it was slow initially. This disappeared in short time, and pondering this I had a theory that because there was so much more information to absorb and process, the brain was tricked into believing the music was longer and slower - sort of like when Formula 1 drivers get into the zone and time slows. I do agree with Frogman there are psychoacoustical effects. I recall listening to a Mercury Living Presence recording on a Phillips reissue and simply did not recognise the performance even though I had the original Mercury pressing. I was convinced the performance on Phillips was ponderous and slow - further investigation revealed the records were identical, but the Phillips reissue had been remixed destroying the ebb and flow of the music. Thanks for posting the comparison - even via video there is much to hear. |
@halcro cc @frogman
Palladian/London Decca Reference/Sony XL
Great music. Beautiful.
In a nutshell firstly comparing the Palladian to the Decca, again ibuds, the Decca wins, most notably I can hear the chest and body of the female choristers, even individually. On the Palladian it sounds like they are singing from the top of their throat - no chest. The Decca more accurately conveys the full weight of the choristers and the room acoustics.
Then comparing the Sony XL88D to the Decca - wow. More transparent and the majesty of the performance and the completeness of the full orchestral spectrum conveyed by the Sony is fabulous. There appears to be more chest/body with the choristers from the Decca, but the vocals from uppermids to top end on the Sony appear far more transparent. As the full orchestra comes in the Sony is simply wonderful, the most complete cartridge for me of the three..
At this point I am done with comparisons - could you please just send me the Sony for Xmas. Now back to the music....
|
PP
Still listening to the Sony whilst I'm posting, will be interesting to hear from Frogman, to my ears I'm hearing far more of the individual tonal colours of individual voices and the orchestral instruments appear far more realistic in tonal colour and timbre with this cartridge.
|
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.
Listening to both this is what I hear ( on ear buds ) -
On violins with the carbon fiber you can hear more of the acoustic recording space of the whole orchestra, whereas with the FRS3 the leading violin is crisper and cleaner, more vibrant but with less acoustical information. In some parts the cf on violins becomes quite screachy, compared to the FRS3 less so.
From the midrange down to mid bass the FRS3 appears to have better articulation, and again fuller and more vibrant. The carbon fiber sounds a bit congealed through the upper bass to midrange. On some passages the cf presents a clearer leading edge in the mid bass, but the more vibrant FRS3 conveys better tempo and clearer presentation of space in the lower end to my ears, and ultimately more transparency in this region.
For me the FRS3 is more musically listenable because the better presentation of tempo in the lower ranges underpins the musical flow and enjoyment.
How does this compare with your in room experience.
As an aside, when you use a heavy headshell, you will be altering the counterweight to compensate for the increased mass at the headshell end. The end result is that you are adding mass loading to the knife edge bearings, so the changes to sound will be a combo of cartridge/headshell resonances, inceased effective mass and most importantly increased load on the jewelled knife edge bearings. I know that some Japanese audio fetishists would add mass over the bearing on unipivots/knife edge bearings to improve bottom end without altering the effective mass - like dumbells each side of the bearings.
|
@halcro
Thanks.
My suspicion would be that the extra mass anchors the sound a little more whereas the metal headshell imparts a little more of the vibrancy.
I did notice the worst mistracking appeared on the left channel.
Van den hul styli do tend to be very fine and more twitchy on VTA etc, even his early work. I have recently installed a Van den hul Colibri on a Kuzma 4 Point 11 and can hear vast repeatable changes to soundstage with as little as 0.1mm change in height at the back of the arm.
Cheers.
|
@halcro
So on the usual macair/airbuds
Sapphire appears initially more resolving on both pieces of music.
Ruby cantilever is awful - splashy top end and lacks definition from the midrange down. Weavers on the Ruby is unlistenable. Orchestral less so.
Now in terms of Boron vs Sapphire, what I hear is more resolution with the Sapphire cantilever, particularly in the lower treble and up. It appears to be more articulate and resolving of air.
However - the Boron has a more developed upper base and midrange - I know the Weavers album well - to my ears the voices are better resolved on the Boron, you can hear more chest, body and weight of the individual singers. The sapphire loses gravitas and resolution on vocals here in the lower range.
On the Weavers the Boron aligns more with what I hear in my system, particularly in the vocal area.
I am not familiar with the cartridges, but is the Boron SAS stylus profile a different profile from the other NeoSAS on the other 2.
From my own experience I have had the Talisman B ( Boron ) and Talisman S ( Sapphire ). The Talisman S has more resolution overall with no downsides - midrange has both weight and resolution.
PS Did you forget to feed your dog again.
|
@halcro What could possibly explain the differences here, is that the proportions of the RUBY CANTILEVER to the SAPPHIRE CANTILEVER appear to be different? The main theory for going to exotic cantilever materials is not only stiffness, to improve resolution, but also to push the resonant frequency of the cantilever/stylus assembly as high up as possible out of the "audio band", mostly to extend high frquency response. The mass also comes into play. Cantilever shape, and whether it is a tube or rod also come into play. The short cantilevered Dynavectors being an extreme example with super extended high frequency response. And of course how the stylus is connected - glued or nude. At the end of the day there is no magic bullet - the sound of a particular cartridge is just the sum of parts, materials and technologies employed and the overall design objectives of the designer. As an aside, if anyone out there has experience with the new "cactus cantilever" I am interested to know if watering it improves the sound. |
@frogman 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..
I have spoken to some designers who believe "dirty copper" should be used on ground planes and screening of interconnects because it attracts and dissipates noise better than "pure materials". This is analagous to some tube designers who advocate the use of carbon resistors as grid stoppers, because although they are generally noisier than other types, they actually are more effective at reducing noise in high voltage power supplies. Again an example of no magic bullets, it is always about the overall design topology, criteria and context. Some other designers are now pushing very high purity silver ground cables, in other words, the opposite view. Is this marketing hype ?? Unfortunately audiophiles who proclaim a "magic component" in every situation usually are unaware of the design criteria of the component, they just assume more $$ equals better sound, not always the case. |
@bydlo
I settled on 22k vishays for Garrott Bros modified Decca London Gold with micro scanner. Probably set up about 10-15 of them in various arms. Also tried mounting resistors on cartridge, end of arm and emd of phono cable. Each position changed subtlely but getting the R optimised had the biggest impact. |
VTA Adjustment
Without getting in the weeds too much most folk use high frequency and base response to adjust VTA., effectively using it as a tone control for their particular system This is wrong.
Correct VTA is when the stylus aligns with the cutting angle, this gives maximum groove contact for the stylus profile the designer came up with and the maximum amount of information recovered from the groove.
Because of system deviations, or distortions as Raul would put it, the only correct way to adjust VTA is by listening for maximum information recovery, maximum soundstage size and maximum preservation of the harmonic structure of instruments.
|
Halcro,
Heartless is a bit harsh - we all aspire to great sound and wish it upon all. I'm reading forums to take a break from renovations and politics.
From a quick listen
XL88 vs Signet - XL88 sounding a little brittle, but compared to the Signet has more accurate presentation of instruments ( Signet sounds coloured like the FR7 ) and better timing through the midrange.
Whilst the Signet initially sounds very nice, very fruity midrange, it loses composure ( timing ) through the upper bass midrange area. To me it sounds very coloured - if it were a movie I would say 50's jive.
The Sony is more even handed, very quick and better timng across the board, more articulate.
In terms of the brittleness with the XL88, unless the VTA needs tweaking, I think you may be doing it a disservice using the super heavy FR headshell - the Sony is a medium compliance MC. Since you dont like Orsonics, I might suggest you try something like one of the Audiotechnica Technihard head shells - nid weight version - 12-15g if you have one.
XL88D vs Signet -
I thought XL88 sounded way better on the SAEC, then realised you had switched to XL88D. It was very noticeable the tonal qualities of the XL88D in the SAEC arm are closer to the Signet with a more fullsome midrange
Having said that again the timing and refinement of the Sony XL88D across the full frequency range shines through to my ears.
Again - the XL88D is a medium compliant cartridge and I think there are gains to be had in using a lighter headshell in the 12-15g range.
|
@halcro
@frogman
Re headshell comparison.
Yes.
Apart from the qualifier that, for me, MM cartridges are like green eggs and ham.
So with my mac air & Air buds circa 2012..
With the FR3 shell I can hear the initial rosiny striking of the bow on Ottos violin. This initial strike is lost with the Yamamoto. To me in general the violin sounds quite congealed in the upper mid lower treble on the Yamamoto.
With the harpsichord, I can hear more of the key strike on the strings, and more acoustical space around the individal notes with the FR3.
The FR3 to my ears presents a more robust and developed upper base lower mid, particularly when the full orhestra comes in - more weight.
FR3 a clear winner on this comparison.
I'll leave frogman to provide the technical analysis. I suspect he might find the FR3 a little coloured like the FR7 cartridges - be interesting to hear his view.
As an aside did you know Audiosilente does an aluminium screw for the FR3 - I assume this would reduce the mass somewhat.
Have you tried the newer Ikeda heashell IS2-T with the titanium collar, I have the older one that came with my Ikeda Kiwame cartridge, it has quite a robust sound that works well with some cartridges. I used it on my Dynavector from time to time.
|
@halcro The Constable cancelled my Licence for 6 months there and then, and proceeded to unscrew the car's plates which were confiscated for 3 months.
I asked him if I should further punish the 'guilty' car when I got it back home ...😂
He was not amused.... Sorry to hear that - my memorables are Audi S3 - cop says "money wont hurt you you rich B, but the points will get ya, ha ha " - I took them to court and they lost. And in the US - "I've been trying to catch up for 1/2 an hour, I like to throw you in jail but I cant cos you're a D### foreigner" - got back to the hotel and found he'd ripped out most of the pages on my international license. |
@halcro
Awesome, well done.
|
@frogman @halcro The Glanz moving flux system is patented https://patents.justia.com/patent/4072823as are their stylus profiles. From my understanding it has a unique construction that provides a very linear flux density field as the cantilever moves. It also has very low inductance ( approx 120mH ) compared to most typical MM's at 400-800mH. As a consequence of the low inductance it is very sensitive to resistive loading, less sensitive to capacitive loading. My MFG61 has at times blown away my Koetsu Black Goldline, at other times it has sounded as dead as a doornail. It's a very sensitive beast to tonearms/loading/cabling. |
@halcro
How are you. We are in lockdown here now, so sanding and painting is the daily routine. Tomorrow - more sanding and painting.
Well they are quite different - if I was a gastronome I would describe "A" as a fine consumme, "B" as gruel.
If I was attending a live performance and Maria sounded like "B" then I would ask the singer if she could put her teeth back in.
"A" has far more resolution, bandwidth, is quicker and communicates the tempo much better. The voice alone is vastly more transparent.Ditto with the orchestra.
"B" is bandwidth limited, the top end of Marias vocal has gone awol, leading edges of notes notes are lost. Both the orchestra and vocals are homogeinised into a thick gruel.
I would assume A is the moving coil - now you can tell me if you got me !
If A is the moving coil - I might hazard a guess its the Acoustical Sounds Palladian, its a little ragged at times.
|
@halcro
Thanks for the reveal.
After @frogman 's last post I thought maybe I screwed up, unless he was being devil's advocate.
But alas "MM" for me is green eggs and ham. I knew "A" was a MC, as I called it, the only doubt was was it the Decca ? or a MI/IM, but it sounded too uneven to be a Decca.
I was surprised at some of frogman's qualitative comments - this has only happened once before - I think my standard i buds are presenting quite differently to his stax headphones as you would expect.
The actual cartridges are a surprise - my faded memeory of the SPU was a little warmer in tone than in the video.
Now the Glanz MFG 610LX is an interesting one - of course it is a moving flux, not a moving magnet. It sounds quite different to my MFG61 which would seem to be more extended in the top end.
I am wondering if your capacitance and/or resistive loading is out. It sounds like mine with too much capacitance. With the MFG61 the recommended capacitance is 100-150pf and resistance 47k. I'm running 146pf - to get there I have to change my phono cable to an ultralow capacitance Audioplan ( 46pf total ) instead of my usual MIT which is very capacitive ( not a problem with MC's ). Try these and let us know - you will have to allow for your phono cable.
From what I can see on the net if you are using Cardas Golden Reference RCA , then 3m is about 120pf, and you would need about 30pf max on the phono input. If you are using CGR XL your cables are about 70pf, you would need 30-80 pf max on the phono input.
Great experiment - and as you say it shows we can hear differences via youtube video's online.
|
@halcro
Recommended VTF for the MFG61 is 1.5g plus/minus 0.25g.
From memory initally I started at 1.7 due to the age of the cartridge - my rational is that the suspension can stiffen up with age ( or collapse - which will result in a low rider ) and therefore to avoid mistracking I start at the higher end ( I do this with new cartridges as well ).
Then once I am happy it is running well and tracking well, after running in I'll lower the tracking force.
I'm pretty sure I ended up around 1.6gm.
Dont forget when you adjust VTF you change the VTA, and it needs adjusting. For correct tracking force I use "feel" rather than frequency response - in other words at what VTF does the cartridge sound like its tracking securely but not slugged ( too heavy ).
When you say 40ohms loading - do you mean 40k ?
I would suggest stick to 47k. This is the recommended load ( for 61 )
Do you have the specs for the 610 ?? I'm curious to know whether the cartrdiges are the same.
|
@halcro
I found the specs for your MFG610LX
Recommended load 47k
Recommended Capacitance 100pf
Recommended tracking force 1.5g plus/minus 0.25g
In theory you should set your MM input to 47k and lowest capacitance possible for linear response. From what I can find due to its low inductance the Glanz are more sensitive to resistive loading than capacitive loading.
The MFG610LX and MFG61 have slightly different specifications -
MFG61 has better channel separation 25db versus 23 for the 610LX.
MFG61 has a Special Polyhedron stylus profile versus a Line Contact in the 610LX. "Special Polyhedron" is according to Glanz patents more refined - looks to me its moving towards to van den hul/geiger profile.
MFG61 has very slightly higher compliance - 25 vs approx 15-20 for the 610LX ( at 10hz ).
|
@halcro
cc @frogman
Glanz with teeth -
Much better now.
Marias voice is more articulated, leading edges of words are clearer, you can hear her chest cavity, more power, dynamic contrasts, tonal colours vastly better - she soars.
With regards to the orchestral presentation - much more urgency, instrumental tonal colours much much better to my ears. Woodwinds and strings to me sound much more realistic.
For me there is much less compression of sound.
Whats your view of the cartridge now ??
|
@halcro
I've actually been busy getting my new ensuite ready for the plumber to hook everything up.
I'm happy to give it a go, but in an ideal world I would want the same arm/cartrtidge on both TT's - I believe I could pick it every time in a blind test with the same arm/cartridge.
TT1 - DD
TT2 - Belt
On TT1 I hear grain in the treble region, which I would associate with the Victor. There is also a slight imprecision in the lower base region on TT2 which I have heard on your Raven before.
TT3 - DD
TT4 - Belt
This was much harder to pick - on this recording the bandwidth limiting seems to narrow the differences in the upper mid/lower treble.
However again there is a slightly better very low base articulation with TT1, and therefore based on previously hearing the Raven's imprecision in this region, would guess TT1 - Victor, TT2 Raven.
Sock it to me - how did I go.
|
@halcro I thought it was a fun exrcise. I'm pretty relaxed sbout the outcome, happy that I got the first comparision correct. As I said I found the second a little harder to pick. I am a little surprised on the second - I listened to the bottom end extension and definition and on my "reference" standard issue earbuds TT4 was a little imprecise. I am more surprised given the Dynavector arm, which I've had for years, is very tight in the bottom end. The astringency of the of Palladian in the mid to top end was also a little surprising because I remember the comaprison when you switched it from the Dynavector arm to the Cobra unipivot, most of this went away. DD vs Belt Drive The most interesting thing here is that for over 30 years my reference has been the thread drive Final Audio VTT1. To summarise - it has a 26kg platter, inverted bearing, huge by most standards AC motor driven directly off an Onix OA60 power amplifier controlled by precision independent sine and cosine generators for the motor. There is no speed correction - it relies on huge inertia and a large AC motor independent of mains fluctuations. The recommended "belt" which I use is a chalked silk thread. This is important. HP had it in house briefly at Seacliffe in the late 70's/early 80's and he described the Final Audio VTT1 as sounding more like a direct drive TT than a belt drive. Qualitatively he compared it favourably to his Goldmund Reference, but in typical HP review he mentioned "midbass hump". Unfortunately the US importer had set the Final up on a crude air bag platform which destroyed the whole intent of the design. The whole design is premised upon sinking all unwanted energy to ground. There are no lossy materials used, materials used are processively from stylus to ground - chromium copper, aluminium, gunmetal ( leaded bronze ), SPZ ( superplastic Zinc alloy ). Additionally I use Final's recommended platform which is a constrained and compressed stone plinth using the same materials and principles that support the Shinkansen bullet train cement sleepers. This all sits on a custom steel table. So from this reference and having had many top end TT's in my system, what I have found is - All belt drives that use a lossy belt ( rubber the worst ) lterally sound rubbery in the bottom end. Leading transients are diffuse. I concur with @edgewear when he says My old Micro RX1500 (with separated motor unit, stainless steel plateau, copper mat and brass stabilizer ring) uses the non compliant SF-1 kevlar belt. This is a massive improvement over a rubber belt and largely closes the gap with DD in terms of pitch stability,
A few years ago I wanted a second TT and bought a Platine Verdier. Even with it's high inertia, I could not achieve anything like the pitch stability on the Final - converting it to thread improved the stability, removing the rubber bellows feet and replacing them with rigid footers, improved the stability, modifying the motor mounting helped, but unfortunately still a dog. Now for Direct Drives. I have heard the Technics SP10mk3 and Kenwood LO7D on inumerable occasions, had them in house. Although they are quite good, I always hear a grey wash, the LO7D less so. The SP10mk3 appears more pitch stable than the LO7D, if you look at the error correction systems the Technics uses fast recovery. The LO7D allows a much larger speed error before correction. Your Victor measures and spreads the error correction over a longer period of time, smoothing out what I call jitter induced by the error correction systems. Some folk on this forum are sceptible as to the connection between error correction and sound. however look at the evolution of the GP Monaco direct drive - it entered the market with "state of the current art" error correction algorithms, streets ahead of what was technically possible in the 70's/80's when the SP10mk3 & LO7D were built, and yet the GP Monaco is now on its 3rd or 4th upgrade path, and all owners describe massive improvements with each upgrade. That does not mean i am against DD in principle, as with any TT it comes back to the quality of the design as much as the Technology chosen. If I were to build a DD turntable I would use a very high inertia platter ( 25kg ), and no error correction. Some folk refer to the fact that some cutting lathes use direct drive motors, but what they ignore are 2 important facts - 1. The load on a motor when cutting records is far far different that the load on a motor when playing records. This means that the motor when used in cutting is being driven considerably harder, and in most instances the motor will be operating at a level at which it produces higher torque. This is the same principle as the eddy brakes used in some idler turntables - for example on the Garrard301/401 the eddy bake is designed to make the motor work harder, at an operating point where it produces more torque. Putting drag on a motor can also assist speed stability - some belt drive TT's are designed with "bearing drag" so force the motor work harder. 2. Cutting lathes use flywheels to add intertia. Even one of the most powerful cutting lathe motors ever produced - the Technics SP02 - which dwarfs the motor used in the SP10mk3 was designed specifically for the Neumann lathe, and more specifically for the Neumann lathe when used with an additional 70lb flywheel. Idler Drives Funnily enough after the disaster with the Platine Verdier, I rebuilt an old 60's Pioneer idler drive I had lying around. I wanted a 2nd deck with 78rpm capability. This demonstrated far better pitch stability than the Verdier, when compared directly with same arm and cartridge ( I used multiple FR64S I had to compare decks. It did lack some resolution, but given the bearing was stuffed and I had made a crude replacement this was not surprising. And so I picked up a Garrard 301 and rebuilt it. Mine has been considerably refined, full motor rebuild including new bearings and blueprinting and hand tuning for minimum noise, elimination of metal to metal contact in the linkages under the chassis by replacing all rivet/pivot joints with nylon bushes/teflonwashers/nautical grease to eliminate noise, modified bearing/thrustpad, but standard platter. The standard platter was precision ground to ensure the surface is flat - the original is concave. This is the nearest I've got to the Final. From listening to other idlers including the massive Denon RP52 I think that it is the big AC motors used in idlers as much the idler drive per se that provides the drive. I have 2 friends with SME 20's and 30's - the Garrard 301 slaughters them, and no loss of transparency despite the "idler noise". Ultimately I think in reality folk have to make the best of what they can afford or have, and what really happens is that folk buy arms/cartridges that work to mask the deficiences in their TT , complementary colourations - no TT is perfect. |
@halcro Thread Drive I actually tried a number of 'approved threads' sent to me by Dertonearm for driving the Raven AC-2 as an alternative to the rubber belt.
Unfortunately....none of them could regulate the platter speed correctly due to the Raven's design of requiring the 'rough' side of the rubber belt to 'grip' the Delrin edge of the platter. The problem with most turntable motors is that the motors are not designed to withstand side loads imparted by the belt. With some manufacturers they get the motors modded by adding roller bearings to support the motor spindle. Thats why they go noisy over time. Thread drive presents higher loads than rubber belts, so you need a motor that is much stronger. The motor in the Final uses a large diamoeter spindle, sintered bushings top and bottom, and a thrust pad similar to a TT. Also the pulley needs to be concave for thread drive. And yet you thought the 'rubber' Belt-Drive turntable was a DIRECT-DRIVE in the above test...🤔
Yes, I'm going to drown my sorrows with a very good Central Otrago Pinot Noir tonight. Notwithstanding that obvoiusly the Raven AC is one of the better belt drives out there. Have you looked at the possibility of upgrading the platter ( 10kg ) to the Anniversary platter ( 20kg ). According to Brinkmann they believe that magic number for enough mass is 15kg and if the bearing is up to it I would expect the Anniversary platter to be a good upgrade, particlualry in terms of stability. |
