Hear my Cartridges....🎶

millercarbon, I take your “contribution” to mean that you guessed wrong both times? ☺️

Perhaps a better way of asking the question is:

When the playback equipment is of such high caliber, where (turntable or cartridge) does that extra bit of improvement bring one closer to the music?  I suppose it is, as always, a subjective call.  Does one react most positively to that extra iota of tonal truthfulness, or of rhythmic integrity?  Of course, then there is still the arm to contend with.  
To quote Vince in “Pulp Fiction”:

“Ain’t it cool?”  

Can also drive one crazy.  😱

Excellent, Edgewear!

In answer to Halcro’s question, my primary takeaway goes to our agreement about TT4 being DD. You describe the sound as “tightly organized rhythmic presentation” while I described it as “solid pitch stability” compared to TT3’s slight pitch waver. One can’t have great rhythm without rock solid pitch stability. It confirms my feeling that DD, in general, offers superior pitch stability; something that has been a struggle for me in setting up my belt drive turntables over the years. Perhaps time to jump ship.

One of the mysteries of this hobby is how the advantages AND disadvantages of the different technologies impact our perception of the music; sometimes in ways that are contrary to what would expect from a logical standpoint. Belt drive, as you point out, are known for highlighting “the flow” of the music. Yet, the flow of the music, from a musician’s perspective, is entirely dependent on great pitch stability. A conundrum.

As I wrote, due to the nature of the music there weren’t obvious clues re pitch stability in the Stravinsky examples. Yet, I associated what was for me the “bolder with more hf energy sound” of the belt drive TT2 with my expectations for DD. Knowing now the cartridges involved, it all makes sense. This is what I wrote in the previous MC/MM “test” re the Glanz cartridge (on TT1 in this test and cartridge B in the previous test):

**** Cartridge B requires (allows) that the listener “lean into” the music instead of it being pushed in the direction of the listener.

“A” seems to present a more generous soundstage and with larger individual images. “B” ‘s soundstage seems more compact with smaller individual images. ****

The Glanz, even on a DD (TT1) which I expected to provide a sound which was “bolder”, retained its more polite and “set back” sound. Pretty consistent observations, I would say. So this brings up again the often asked question: barring gross pitch stability issues in a TT’s performance what is most important, turntable or cartridge? Of course, when one is dealing with gear of this caliber, the deficiencies in any one sonic parameter are very small and the music does not suffer too terribly in any case. Thoughts?

Thanks, interesting and fun as always, Halcro.

Tough one; and interesting and insightful comments by Dover and Noromance.

In the absence of the common denominators of same cartridge and tone arm, I have to go by my experience as a long time strictly-belt-drive TT owner and my expectations of what the stereotypical differences between the two technologies might be; most notably, the presumed superior pitch stability of DD.

First, I agree with Dover and Noromance and would say that TT’s 1&3 and, by default, TT’s 2&4 are the same turntable. However, I’m afraid that I don’t agree with some of the characterizations of their respective sounds and the attributed technological provenance. In fact, I hear TT’s 1&2 in completely the opposite way that Noromance does. Possibly a semantics issue; or, perhaps playback gear. Besides, I wouldn’t dream of disappointing can’t Halcro by NOT “breaking the consensus wide open” 😊

I hear the sound of TT’s 2&4 as bigger, bolder and with more (not less) high frequency energy. However, the sound is also a bit less colorful with just a hint of the dreaded (for me) bleached quality, especially in the Stravinsky; and, too tight and borderline shrill (piccolo) in the higher registers. The sound of TT’s 1&3 is, to my ears, a bit rounder and plush, with more of the natural tonal colors that I hear in live sound. However, it is also less bold and less expansive; more contained and set back a bit further and, on the Stravinsky, it could be described as slightly covered. I do agree with the comments about bass articulation.

Taking into account the unknown but expected unique contribution of the arms and cartridges used, what is left for me and the deciding factor is the perceived pitch stability of each and my, possibly fatally biased, expectations of what that may mean. This, taking into account that the pitch stability of this belt drive will be excellent regardless.

There is little in the Stravinsky to provide an obvious clue re pitch stability except the perceived boldness of TT2; possibly attributable to superior pitch stability. However, on the “Look of Love” I hear just a hint of waver in the decay of piano notes with TT3. Those decays sound more solid to me with TT4.

Which one sounds more like the real thing? I suppose that, as always, it depends on one’s priorities. Tonally, TT’s 1&3 do it for me. Pitch stability wise, 2&4. So, with that and the other observations in mind, I will go out on a limb and say that TT’s 1&3 are the belt drive and TT’s 2&4 are the direct drive.  As always,  very subtle differences and very fine sound all the way around.  

Oh, the pressure! 😱

Btw, Halcro, very sneaky of you to have both TT’s spinning at all times 😉

This afternoon, I promise.  Sorry, obnoxious, I know.  

Late to the party and away from Agon. Sorry, guys.  It’s been a very hectic time as the live music scene opens up again,  finally!  Will offer some thoughts later this evening.  Best to all.

Thanks.  Also, as Dover pointed out it is a Moving Flux, not a MM.  In your and Dover’s (or anyone else’s) experience, could this explain the absence of the telltale HF ceiling that I usually hear from MM’s?

Needless to say, I am very surprised at the sound heard from the Glanz. I will have to go back and search for my reaction to the first time you included it here, Halcro. I don’t remember having a similar reaction. The Glanz is now one of two MM’s heard here that, for me, play with realistic tonal color and no hint of tonal blandness which for me is most important above all else. May I ask which arm/headshell it was mounted on for this most recent shootout? Thanks.

Fun indeed!  Yes, playing devil’s advocate can get one in trouble.  My wife always tells me I like to be contrarian.   Much in the sound of “A” told me that it should be the MC, but still…… Thanks, Halcro.  Interesting as always.

Man, talk about pressure!

Excellent and astute observations by all. With a couple of exceptions, I agree with most of what has been written about these two cartridges. I may be stating the obvious, but I should also point out that while I generally prefer MC’s over MM’s, I don’t believe that any and every MC is superior to all MM’s. This thread has shown that handily; Halcro owns many fine MM’s. So far there seems to be pretty general agreement that cartridge A is superior to B. However, the question is not about preference, but identification of the type that each is.

By comparison, cartridge A exhibits some of the typical MC traits. As has been pointed out it seems to offer higher resolution than cartridge B leading one to think that it is of the MC type. However, the detail that this “higher” resolution gives is of the “more in your face” type. Cartridge B requires (allows) that the listener “lean into” the music instead of it being pushed in the direction of the listener.

“A” seems to present a more generous soundstage and with larger individual images. “B” ‘s soundstage seems more compact with smaller individual images. However, although it is smaller, “B” ‘s soundstage seems better proportioned, hence more realistic. When the voice enters, the accompanying woodwind arpeggiated filigrees are much more clearly set behind the singer, as they should be. That is a type of “resolution”, no?

At first, “A” seems to be more rhythmic. However, this may be due in part to the above observation about the more “up front” quality and possibly also the fact that the volume level heard from “A” is slightly higher than that of “B”.

”A” is more generous through the lower midrange and bass. However, it is also a little plummy in that range with a bit of overhang of bass notes. “B” is slightly leaner through this frequency range, but sounds more realistic due to the lack of the overhang which results in better pitch definition; it is easier to hear actual pitches from the basses and not just low frequency energy. This also makes it easier to hear when the bassoons play in unison with lower strings. Again, resolution of a sort.

To my ears, “B” is a better tracker than “A”. With “A” there is audible breakup, not just on the vocal’s dynamic peaks, but also leading up to those peaks. With “B” the sound sound stays fairly well controlled up until those peaks. “B” also does a better job with the passages in which the full orchestra plays along with the singer. “A” sounds more congested in those passages.

So far it could go either way. With the possible exception of the slightly plummy quality in the bass, which is fairly typical of MM’s, I have heard cartridges of either persuasion that exhibit the above characteristics. What tipped the scale for me is the following:

I can’t claim to have owned anywhere near as many different cartridges as have been heard on this thread, but in my experience there is one characteristic that I have heard from practically all MM’s that I seldom hear from a good MC…..with two exceptions. I almost always hear some degree of a kind of “gray” or bleached tonal quality in the sound of music played with even the best MM’s that is almost always absent with a good MC. This robs the sound of instruments and voice of their natural color; and hence their distinctiveness as heard in real life. I hear that quality from “A”. “B” lets one hear more of that natural timbral color. I mentioned the arpeggiated woodwind filigrees heard when the voice enters. With “B” it is obvious that the piccolo is a wooden piccolo. With “A” its not so obvious. Wood or metal? In the same passages, with “B” one hears more of the clarinet’s wonderful round quality; what players call a “pingy” sound. More importantly, each instrument’s color is very different. Once again, higher resolution of a sort. “A” homogenizes their (and the voice’s) individual colors and sounds a bit dry overall.  

There has been one MM cartridge’s that I have heard here that does not exhibit some degree of that tonal bleaching, the Victor X1. Another is the Azden which I own, but which is not nearly on the same level as the Victor overall; and highly unlikely to have been Halcro’s choice for MM. So, if “B” is in fact the Victor, then all bets are off. Otherwise, I will go out on a limb and in spite of the things heard that tell me that “A” SHOULD be the MC (and I do prefer “A” in some ways) I will play devil’s advocate and buck the trend by stating that “A” is the MM and “B” the MC.

😱

Btw, “A” is very reminiscent of the sound heard from the recent “Signet” MM with FR headshell. Edgewear’s “B”/Denon comment is something that also came to mind; although the Denon 103R that I own is not on the same level overall.

Gorgeous aria from Verdi’s “Simon Boccanegra”. Nice!

Easy!……..Easy to tell that the two cartridges sound significantly different. Their provenance? That is the question.

Btw, gesundheit, Princi!  Or, perhaps it was Halcro. Now, THAT would make an interesting challenge. 😊

Nice music selections! One of my favorite Rock records from one of the all time best R&R bands that many have never heard of. Love the music of Astor Piazzola! Wonderful music. If you don’t have it, may I recommend “Zero Hour”; arguably, his greatest recording.

**** this will not please Frogman 🥴 ****

Not displeased at all! The Signet is a very fine cartridge and clearly one of the very best MM’s in your collection, based on what has been heard here. However, it’s all relative isn’t it? Compared to a great MC or Decca….…..or the Victor X1, to my ears there is just something not quite right with the top end which also affects the upper partials of the lower frequency spectrum. There is always an obvious high frequency ceiling that causes a kind of subtle dullness and sameness of instrumental colors. With few exceptions, I have heard something similar with most of the MM’s I have owned, or heard here.  Of course, the Signet and Victor are on different tonearms, but still…….. I have heard the same things to one degree or another regardless of arm. The Signet, however, seems to do a better job in the tracking department. Both carts had trouble with the Piazzola recording, but the Signet less so.

Overall, the Victor sounds much better balanced and without the hf ceiling. With the Signet, perhaps partially as a psychoacoustic result of the hf ceiling the midrange sounds a bit thick and the bass drummy and too corpulent and with inferior pitch definition compared to the Victor.

All relative. Fine sounds as always; and, once again, Princi got it right 😊.

Thanks for sharing, Halcro.

Wonderful music and lovely performance!

In simple answer to the question, a resounding YES. Frankly, I am surprised by how different the same cartridge sounds in each of the two head shells. I am not sure about the “golden ears” part 😊, but the differences are pretty obvious.

I am in complete agreement with Dover in that the FR is the clear winner in this comparison and I agree with his specific observations. Not to put too fine a point on this, but I would also have to stress “in this comparison”. I will explain what I mean, but first to add to Dover’s excellent comments:

The sound with the Yamamoto head shell is simply too dry. There is a “bleached” quality to the overall sound and upper strings in particular sound too thin and borderline steely compared to how they sound in real life. There is a “hashy” (“congealed”?) quality to the upper strings that tends to, as Dover observed, mask the initial attack of the harpsichord. Likewise, the lower strings, lack a bit of tonal meat on the bone. Surprisingly, the push-pull of the tempo in the players’ phrasing is more
obvious with FR. On the plus side for the Yamamoto is that probably as a result of its dry quality, pitch definition is perhaps slightly better in the lower registers.

The reason I would stress “in this comparison” (mostly speculation):

I am not a fan of AT/Signet cartridges (nor most MM’s) as far as their rendering of tonal quality/timbre goes. The sounds of live acoustic instruments have quite a bit of natural color. Sometimes what some listeners describe as “neutral” or lacking in coloration to me is a sound lacking in that natural color; “bleached” sounding or having what I would describe as a “gray” coloration. In spite of their other positive traits I would put AT/Signet cartridges in that camp (Shure’s, worst of all in my experience).

Having said all that, Signets have never struck me as cartridges that are thin or steely sounding; quite the contrary; if anything, lacking some natural high frequency sparkle and color. So, why that type of sound in the Yamamoto head shell? At the same time, why would a cartridge that tends to sound gray and colorless (in a negative sense) sound more naturally colorful in the FR headshell?

Dover suspected that I might find the sound with the FR “colored”. Actially, I find the sound to be pretty close to my sense of what tonally correct is. However, he may be correct in that I also have a suspicion that a cartridge like my “vintage” Koetsu Rosewood which is inherently romantic sounding might in fact sound unnaturally “colored” in the FR, but might benefit from what is possibly the Yamamoto’s inherent dryness.

“It’s all about synergy” says Princi 😌

Interesting as always, Halcro. Thanks.

Great comments, edgewear.  I share you appreciation of Strauss’ “Don Quixote”.  Fantastic work.  Tone poem which, as you say, is practically a cello concerto; although the role of the viola (Sancho Panza) in this work is not to be underestimated.  One of many examples of Strauss’ genius.  Hard for me to name a best Strauss composition since there are so many great ones.  I would also point to “An Alpine Symphony”, “Till Eulenspiegels”, “Ein Heldenleben” as particularly good examples of his orchestration genius,  And, of course, his operas; for me, “Elektra” in particular.  

Halcro, being a fan of Decca recordings, if you don’t own it, the Decca “Elektra” with Solti/Vienna is fantastic and available as a reissue from Speakers Corner.  Hair raising music.  I am also particularly fond of his “Four Last Songs”.  Schwarzkopf’s recording on EMI is fantastic.  If forced to pick a favorite Strauss work, this might be it.  
Regards.

I would love to hear your system, Halcro; and have no doubt that it sounds fantastic.  If I am ever in your neck of the woods I’ll be sure to let you know.
The issue of “superiority” is a tricky one, imo.  For me, the respective sounds of, in this case, two truly excellent components get to a point when “superiority” is determined by superiority in specific areas that are sonic priorities; even when the other component does better in areas which are not sonic priorities.  I wrote:

**** Sound staging excellence takes a back seat for me no matter how impressive or fun it may be with another cartridge. ****

You wrote:

**** The sheer size, height and depth of the image created.
The pinpoint imaging.
The transparency.
The shimmering highs and realistic lows. ****

As you have stated, or suggested, several times previously and as the above comment seems to prioritize, sound staging is extremely important for you.  Less so for me.  I am sure that we can agree that the soundstaging with the Decca is at least very good.  I think we can then take those considerations off the table for the sake of this discussion.  Tonal considerations then become what determines for me which is “superior”.  Based on this and previous comparisons I would say that you prefer a sound with a lower midrange/upper bass range that is a little more prominent than would be my preference.  Nothing wrong with that at all.  I feel that even a little too much prominence in that range, and especially if not well integrated and tonally consistent with the midrange obscures midrange nuance which is the most important aspect of sound for me.  This is the reason that I continue to suffer the bass inadequacies of my beloved Stax F81’s.  I have not heard a more tonally truthful midrange.  
The sound with the Decca pushes some of the same buttons for me.  There is something simply tonally correct about its sound in the context of your system as heard this way.  Perhaps “in situ” it would be different, but my priorities would still be the same.  If you ever tire of the Decca, feel free to send it to me; I think Dover already has dibs on the Sony ☺️.  What an amazing collection of cartridges you have.  Congrats!  
I’ll give the Strauss a listen shortly.  One of my very favorite composers and certainly not under appreciated in my book.

Best wishes.

I tried, I really tried. I have made my feelings about the Decca known many times previously and I wanted to be sure that no bias crept into my assessment this time around.

In previous comparisons I always felt that the Decca was a superior cartridge to the Palladian in the areas that are priorities for me: tonal truthfulness (naturalness) and linearity. In those areas and compared to the Palladian the Decca wins handily once again.  Sound staging excellence takes a back seat for me no matter how impressive or fun it may be with another cartridge. Glad to know the Dover agrees with my ranking of the two.

Sony/Decca:
Awesome recording. Beautiful music. Much of the music was lifted and used in the Broadway musical “Kismet”. The melody heard here in the beginning was used as the melody for the song “Stranger In Paradise” from that musical.

Many of the sound staging characteristics that I heard in previous comparisons with the Decca are evident here. The Decca presents a more compact soundstage and a mid/rear of the hall perspective. Very well organized soundstage, but one feels as if sitting about half way toward the back of the hall. The Sony gives a more upfront perspective with larger individual images and a great sense of front to back with images. This is the first time that this quality has been so clear in one of these comparisons. The clarinet clearly and correctly sounds that it is sitting further back than the flute and piccolo. A very impressive sound stage. Likewise, one can hear that the French Horn is sitting further back still and there is a hint of the sound bouncing off the back wall. Great stuff. The Sony is amazing that way and I can only imagine what it sounds like in Halcro’s room.

There are a couple of areas where the Decca still wins for me, however. Again, these areas may not be priorities for some and we are comparing two fantastic cartridges. I would be hard pressed to call one cartridge superior to the other and certainly would not say that the Sony “blows the Decca out of the water”. Again, this according to my priorities.

Within the Decca’s smaller and less impressive sound stage there is slightly better linearity and with certain instruments just a slightly better sense of tonal truthfulness. All very subtle and, again, may not matter as much to some listeners and may not be evident with some music. Overall, the Sony sounds more fleshed out; perhaps a bit too much so at times. It does give a great sense of the inner texture of instrumental timbres. As does the Decca, but which does it in a more compact way due to the smaller individual images. For me, with the Sony there is a slight thickness in the lower mids/upper bass that is not present with the Decca. Listen to the sound of the bass drum. More powerful with the Sony, but one hears the sound of mallet hitting skin and the way that the drum was tuned a little more clearly with the Decca’s. For me the overall sound with the Sony is just a little corpulent at times compared to the sound with the Decca which is a bit leaner. Personally, I would feel the urge to turn down the volume on the subs one notch; or perhaps lower the xover point just a couple of hertz. Not so with the Decca. I love the sound of the triangle with the Decca. Leaner than with the Sony, but with a beautiful shimmer and long decay.

I agree with Dover that the Sony gives a great sense of the grandeur of the music and with his other comments in general. It is very impressive in that regard. Two fantastic cartridges and I would be hard pressed to choose one over the other.

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

https://youtu.be/HEOEZ-HOWkU

Excellent comments re the Sony/Palladian, Dover. Loved the Formula 1 analogy.  We are hearing the same things even if described somewhat differently.  Comments on the “three way” forthcoming; a little busy for a day or so.  Regards to all.

Lovely recording, Halcro; and thanks for obliging me with this comparison.

I must say that I am quite taken aback with the excellence of the sound of the Sony. While you have treated us to several excellent vintage cartridges, for me this is the first that I feel is in the same league as the Palladian. Outstanding! As always, my impressions have mostly to do with tonal and rhythmic characteristics. Listening was done on the usual Stax electrostatic headphones with tube driver.

The tonal characteristics of the Sony are wonderful with a midrange that is more realistically fleshed out and tonally complex than the Palladian which produces a sound that is generally too thin by comparison. Much more of the sound of the body of the harpsichord is evident with the Sony. With the Palladian the harpsichord sounds too thin and “tinkly” and the viola da gamba likewise too thin, almost threadbare, with an unrealistic nasal quality. The Palladian at first gives the impression of revealing a good sense of high frequency air for a greater sense of the room’s acoustic, but in comparison to the Sony this quality becomes an unnatural, squeaky clean, almost electronic sounding halo. With the Sony there is a greater sense of realistic timbre of the individual instruments while the Palladian seems to homogenize their individual and distinctive sounds. 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.

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. 

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? 😃

Thanks for another great comparison.

BTW, and forgive me for nitpicking over a musicological detail. This music is technically not Baroque, but rather from or in the style of music from the Renaissance (pre Baroque).

I know what you mean! 😏

Dear Raul,

**** fun is fun and this is the thread target.****

I don’t think so. To suggest that there is no other value than fun to this thread is not fair nor accurate. With respect, it appears that you did not read all that has been written here. Lewm and Noromance have done a fine job of addressing some of your concerns. Some further thoughts:

++++ see if any of you can distinguish the differences between some of my vintage (and modern) cartridges. ++++

THAT is the “thread target” as stated by our OP. Sure, it is fun. Our hobby should be fun and we should embrace that aspect of it. We should all try it some time.

^^^^ the exercise can have value as “a starting point”; especially in the absence of the availability of cartridges to actually try oneself ^^^^

^^^^ Acknowledging the limitations of listening to music this way,^^^^

I prefaced most of what I wrote with the above comment. We have acknowledged the limitations of this methodology. Moreover, and at least speaking for myself, I have never written that any one cartridge is the “best”. In comparison to another cartridge and acknowledging the limitations one cartridge shows itself to be better than the other according to MY sonic priorities and based on what I hear. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to establish which is the Universal “best” is futile and I don’t believe that you can determine that either. Perhaps you can for yourself and in the context of your sound system which is very different from mine or someone else’s. For instance, I happen to believe, based on my experience, that good tube amplification gets closer to the sound of live music IN CERTAIN SPECIFIC SONIC AREAS that are sonic priorities for me than even the best SS gear. I know you don’t agree with this, but the point is that in the context of such different systems the “best” in one may very well not be the best in the other.

My personal experience here, in my own systems and others’ has been that there are certain and specific sonic traits inherent in each cartridge that are consistent no matter the tonearm, turntable, mat, etc. used. For instance, each and every single time that I have heard a Shure cartridge in any system, mine or otherwise, I have heard a certain sonic character that I simply don’t like. You correctly point out that those other variables may well tilt the balance in favor of a particular cartridge in the context of another turntable set-up or overall system.

I would be interested in knowing what you yourself hear in some of these comparisons. Have some fun and feel free to “go in deep”.

Regards.

Abracadabra!!!

Quick catch up to you guys:

For the sake of expediency, I’ll just say that neither the Shure V15/III nor Denon 103R impressed very much. If forced to choose, I would choose the Denon. I just don’t like the Shure “sound”. Too dry and bleached out; too “gray” sounding for me. The Denon (I owned one) is a little juicier sounding. Too juicy, but I prefer to go in that direction instead of the opposite.

I generally agree with the very good comments about the Sony vs the AS, but I’m not prepared to make definite conclusions. I agree there is a sense of more drive with the Sony. However, it could be due to the Victor’s DD. For that reason alone I don’t think that there is proof of superiority in that department. Probably as important, I think, is that the volume level of the Sony clip is slightly higher than that of the AS. That alone could sway one’s impression of “drive”. We are comparing two very good cartridges and perhaps Halcro can use an SPL meter going forward for setting volume levels and for more fair comparisons. What I like about the Sony is that one hears tonalities with more “meat on the bone” which would be a benefit in an overall leaner sounding system. On the previous doubled up clip that noromance referred to as “tricky”, one of my impressions of the Sony was that the lower octaves were too thick. I heard it on my end as a little muddy and indistinct. This I think contributes to the “more meat on the bones” impression on the Prokofiev (great recording) which, combined with the POSSIBLE greater rhythmic drive, gives the Sony more of what Halcro often refers to as more “magic”.

On the plus side for the AS, while the Sony makes the orchestra sound like it was recorded in a rich, reverberant hall with lots of wood, the AS sounds like the orchestra is in a more modern hall. A little leaner, less grunt in the lower winds and strings. I think there is greater tonal truthfulness and refinement with the Palladian and, as noromance points out, more overall fine detail. Listen to the entrance of the English horn @ 0:26. With the Sony it sounds like the EH enters. With the AS I can hear that it is English Horn AND oboe. However, as a colleague often says: “no one ever gets fired for bad sound”. Meaning: rhythm and timing is No.1. In this example and comparison, and assuming I am wrong about the effect of the slightly lower volume with the AS, the Sony wins.

Probably the toughest comparison yet. I generally agree with your comments. I would also think that in an all SS system like Halcro’s I might prefer the Sony. In an all tube system, I would probably prefer the AS. 

Now, where did that rabbit go? 😊

So as to not derail Halcro’s great thread too much, please forgive a bit of self-promotion (?) in pointing out this thread started several 😱 years ago. A little 🙄 hyperbolic on my part, but some may find something of interest:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/best-single-malt-scotch?highlight=Best%2Bsingle%2Bmalt%2Bscot...

Auchentoshan!!!  Don’t hear that name too often.  A real sleeper and not too expensive.  One of my faves. 

Macallan 25? The Palladian of single malt Scotch. Bold, a little rounded, slightly sweet with a very long finish (that pesky overhang) and $$$$$.  Would recognize that sound anywhere 😄😄😄😄😄.

Two wonderful cartridges and each prioritizes different aspects of recorded sound. 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. Assuming, of course, that those are sonic priorities for that listener; even when at the expense of other sonic considerations. Don’t get me wrong, there probably is nothing that the Palladian doesn’t do extremely well. However, the Decca’s tonal truthfulness is simply killer; and, that is the No.1 sonic priority for me. Once I hear that superior rendition of timbres, for me, it doesn’t matter how impressive the sound stage may be with another cartridge. Add to that the fact that tonality is inextricably linked to the perception of my No.2 sonic priority, rhythmic truthfulness, and for me the Decca is the clear winner.

Noromance makes some excellent observations and I agree once again with his comments. His comment re the children’s voices was one of the first things that I noticed. However, I don’t necessarily agree with his implication (?) that the fact that the LDR is “flatter” sounding with “less body” is a negative. As we all know, sometimes less is more; especially when we are striving for accuracy to a reference. This goes to my “spatial boldness” comment and I am not at all convinced that this boldness is not a distortion or some phase related issue. I would describe what I hear this way:

First, the Palladian tracks play slightly louder than the Decca tracks and I had to match volume levels for each. The Palladian seems to present larger individual images, but not a larger amount of information. In fact, I hear it as akin to expanding a visual image to a larger size; the detail becomes diffuse and there is less apparent detail compared to the smaller more concise image. The LDR’s images seem more concentrated and I can hear more inner detail in the sound of instruments and voices (as Noromance points out). More of the inner texture of their sounds is preserved; tonal truthfulness. The Palladian at first gives the impression of greater refinement, but that is because it rounds the leading edges compared to the LDR. One hears more realistic grit in the sound of electric guitar and bass with the LDR. I find that the finest inner details of instrumental textures are glossed over compared to the LDR. Personally, I think that the Palladian’s overall character (only compared to the LDR) is too smooth. The uppermost harmonics in the sound of instrumental timbres are diminished, Probably better now that it is in the Copperhead arm, but still a little of what Dover referred to as a “grey wash”....COMPARED TO THE LDR. The Palladian has greater bass power, but the sound of bass instruments is too rounded compared to the LDR. On the Karr recording (wonderful!) there is more of the realistic sound of rosin grabbing metal strings with the LDR which gives the sound more definition. All this goes to No.2 sonic priority, rhythm:

To my ears the bass quality of the Palladian is too “bloomy”. There is too much overhang of bass notes. At first the greater bass power and sheer bigness of it is impressive, but I think it actually mucks up the rhythmic interplay between instruments. On “The Wall”, check out the repeated bass note that begins at 4:03. Tight and well defined with the LDR. The absence of overhang allows the drums to sound more in synch with the bass for the feeling of greater rhythmic impetus in the music. With the LDR the rhythmic grooves simply sound a little groovier. On the Karr recording, his beautiful phrasing is somehow more expressive than with the Palladian. At 3:13 he begins a phrase with a suddenly aggressive bowed note. There is a certain amount of startle factor to that musical detail. With the Palladian’s there is less startle factor than with the LDR which sounds faster and more impactful due to the absence of the extra bloom and thickness of the Palladian’s bass.

All this is relatively subtle and both are great cartridges. However, as always, they can’t both sound equally close to the true sound of music while sounding so different. For me, the Decca gets closer.

Great comparison. Wonderful recordings. I love the Karr recording. Believer it or not, had never heard music from “The Wall” and had not followed the band since “Dark Side “ days. I liked it very much. One to pick up.

Thanks, as always.

What a great sounding lp! One of my favorites. Wonderful performances.

Excellent comments by Dover. I agree completely with his assessments and descriptions; and, frankly, don’t have much to add except perhaps to describe some of what is heard somewhat differently.

The Copperhead is a better arm for the Palladian and it is obvious. The SAEC/Palladian combo has too much high frequency energy putting the tonal center of gravity too high in the overall spectrum. This results in what I think is what Dover describes as “lightness”. The “grey wash” is not so much the presence or addition of something, but the absence of something...realistic tonal color as with the Copperhead. Interestingly, and consistently, I described that very effect as “bleached” tonal colors in the previous Palladian/SPU/FR shootout. Instrumental timbres, particularly with upper strings and woodwinds, are more natural and realistic with the Copperhead.

**** 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. ****

Great comments. They go to what are, for me, the most important trait of this combo; it’s musical transparency. The Copperhead/Palladian combo makes clear the musical phrasing of the musicians while the SAEC glosses them over by comparison. The wonderful rallentandos (slowing of tempo) don’t seem to have as much musical meaning with the SAEC.

Very interesting comparison. Thanks.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=IbVmXdrtIZLt_Qbn_JfQCw&q=you%27r...:

And I thought, based on the sequence of posts, that Thuchan’s recommendation of the Century was directed at me ☺️ Silly me. $12,000 !!! C’mon, Halcro we need a shootout between the Century and the Palladian. Better still, between the Century and LDR 😉

Spelling correction to prior post: “bases” should, of course, be basses.  

Palladian:

Dover’s comment about the piano’s left hand is spot on. Sounds a little “cloudy” and indistinct in that register. This also causes the celli and bases to lack some definition and natural sound of rosin. Other than this issue the Palladian was my overall favorite; and by quite a bit. String and piano timbres were easily the most natural of the three cartridges and there was an ease to the rhythmic flow of the music that was very attractive and felt correct.

SPU Silver:

From the very first string entrance. Yikes! Didn’t like at all. Violins way too steely sounding; particularly when playing forte. However, there was much less difference in tonal character between the piano’s left and right hands. Much better weight and definition in this range. More saturated tonal colors even if rather “technicolor” overall. I find the overall sound to have an “in your face” quality with a rather strange tonal balance.

FR:

The worst tracker of the three with a constant sense of being on the verge of breakup. In spite of this I much prefer it to the SPU and in some ways it finds a (not quite) middle ground between the Palladian’s tonal naturalness and the SPU’s technicolor character. I find it a little heavy handed (no pun) and relentless rhythmically; whereas the Palladian sounds more relaxed and rhythmically coherent. I have to admit that when going to the Palladian from the FR, the Palladian sounds a bit bleached in the tonal color department and wish for a little more of the incisiveness that Dover mentions. However, overall the Palladian is the most refined and natural sounding.  It has the fewest distractions that tell us “this is not real”.

Thanks, Halcro.

Thanks for the recommendation, Thuchan. Some impressions tomorrow, Halcro.  It’s been a little busy.

Actually, and just for the sake of consistency and clarity, while I think the Palladian is fantastic, for me it definitely takes second place to the LDR in the ways that mater most to me.  I don’t remember feeling (or writing) that it ties the LDR.  I just revisited the comments for the Palladian/LDR comparison on page 5 of this thread to confirm this.  Interestingly, my comments about sound staging are consistent with more recent comments about the LDR; although, for me, not necessarily a negative at all.  Talk about splitting hairs! 💇‍♂️...two of the best cartridges available (maybe the two best?).

Looking forward to this next comparison.  Later.

****  I feel as if something is fundamentally wrong with the presentation of the idea of the music ****

👍

AT-33/LDR:

Wonderful Ray Charles; thanks.

You keep reinforcing for for me why I need to buy a LDR. It’s really no contest between the two. I don’t know what spatial or sound staging drama one can hear “in situ”, but from the first one or two piano notes it is obvious that the AT sounds two covered in the highs. The piano (and all instruments) sound with diminished upper most harmonics in their sounds; a little dull. Less “leading edge” to the attack of notes. This contributes to an overall rhythmically polite and slightly “lazy”, (and not in a good musical way) rhythmic feel in the music. Specifically:

With the Decca one hears more appropriate sound of metal in the high hat cymbal beginning at :40. And, when the drummer begins to play the repeated triplets on brushes (ONE,2,3  ONE,2,3 ONE,2,3, etc.) at 2:20 the propulsive feeling that this is intended to create is almost lost with the AT; with the Decca it is obvious and signals the beginning of a new chorus in the music.

Overall, across the board more realistic instrumental timbres with the LDR with more realistic rhythmic impetus to the music; particularly important in music at a slow tempo such as this.

In spite of Decca’s not being known for their tracking ability, it sounds superior to the AT in that regard which sounds as if just on the verge of breakup on sharply struck piano notes or chords.

Btw, somewhat of a rarity, Ray himself is the alto saxophone player on this. Pretty good saxophone player for a great piano player/singer.

Thanks, as always.

Thanks, Halcro. I think you may have missed the point I tried to make re the live concert you posted. I have to assume that you have attended live music performances in a first rate concert hall and not just in awful spaces like the one you posted. THAT is what is HP and many have referred to as “the absolute sound”; and the sound in a venue like that is unmatched by any audio system. Unless, of course:

**** I want ’theatre’ ⚡️💥🎉 ****

That makes it all clear.

https://youtu.be/VRkZYdWCe7w

☺️

Edit:  

**** a but runny ****

Should read:

”a bit tubby” 

Too funny.  I need to slow down....maybe proofread ?  🤔

**** Something I said Frogman? ****

Patience, patience! Two days? 😌

Actually, if anything, what kept me from prioritizing a little bit of time for the comparison and response was, in part, what you didn’t say. I haven’t read any specifics re what exactly differentiates the last two cartridges for you. Seems to me that for comments, and certainly for dialogue, to have any real relevance then there should be more than statements of disagreement or comment about NOT hearing what differentiates them for someone else. A little frustrating. No sweat if you don’t want to go there for whatever reason. 😅

Also, I’m a bit mystified by the suggestion that listening on an IPad (!) might be more revealing of differences than on Stax Lambda Pro Sigs/tube amp. No way!

Ok, on the FR’s:

I agree completely with noromance. In fact it mirrors what I was going to write exactly. With the 5 the drums sound like they have blankets stuffed in them. Overall, a but runny and too covered sounding; pretending to be “smoother/more refined”. Not enough hf extension and too much lower mid. With the 6 there is a strong sense of hearing more deeply into what is on the lp; even if that may not be particularly smooth itself. I would differ with noromance only in that I would not call that level of sibilance “slight”. I don’t know if it is setup issues, but that level would be unacceptable for me. My sense is that at least some of that excessive sibilance is on the recording (peaky vocal mic?) and the 5 is tamping it down. The 6’s far better hf response exposes it.

Thanks, as always!

The spell check gremlins strike again.  In my last post (in case it matters)....

**** as should be obvious, that for me the most important aspect of all this is to all issues. ****

.... should read:

” as should be obvious, that for me the most important aspect of all this is TONAL issues.”

Regards.

Thanks for the comments, Halcro.  Somehow, I feel we are not connecting with what we are each trying to say re our experiences and descriptions.  Dover is correct by pointing out that sometimes once a shortcoming or difference is identified it renders the component, if not always unlistenable, then obviously flawed.  I understand that you enjoy all the cartridges in your collection.  I would too; you have many of the best.  However, I still want to understand what about them, in this case the Shure and Decca, you hear as different from each other?  I approach this exercise (and the hobby in general) from the standpoint of determining which component gets me closer to the sound of music as I (!) know it.  Once that is established then one component necessarily becomes superior to the other and the other inferior.  I also don’t particularly enjoy swapping out components.  In the case of cartridges I have found that once I find a cartridge that I like, I prefer to live with it for some time and learn how very small adjustments in set up can optimize the sound.  Just one of the many reasons that I live the ET2; it makes this possible and easy.  I am a bit perplexed as to why  I keep getting the feeling that there is resistance to the idea that one cartridge might be superior to the other.  Again, they can’t all be equally good.

**** But they CAN all be wrong....even the LDR.****

Exactly right!  And, once again, proof of just how far removed even the best are from “the absolute sound”.  

But, some get closer to it than others.  And that is what I hear and try to describe.  The differences may be very subtle, but they are there.  To me, the Decca sounds closer to the sound of music as I know it than the Shure does.  So, if that is to be the case, then there have to be differences between the two.  I suspect that you are reacting more strongly to what I am describing as the differences (and reason for the preference) than is warranted?  Also keep in mind that, as should be obvious, that for me the most important aspect of all this is to all issues.  For me that is the most important aspect of it all.  

**** Could you perhaps try to listen through speakers (or iPad) to see if you can hear some differences in presentation? ****

I have!  And not just for comparing cartridges.  I have been doing so for many years.  Not only do I not think the method is flawed, I have found that for determining differences in timbre and things like musical phrasing my Stax/tube driver setup is superior to speaker listening.  Keep in mind that my speakers are also electrostatics (Stax F81) or transmission line (Paragon Regent).  As good as the Paragons are they are no match for the Stax as far as faithfulness to tonal issues.  I will concede that headphones are inferior to good speakers as far as sound staging issues are concerned.  But, those are secondary concerns for me.  Btw, about a year ago a friend who owns the Audeze and I did a comparison to my Stax and while the Audeze sounds very good I (and he) felt that the Stax did a better job of revealing tonal differences as well being more rhythmically lithe.  The Audeze setup was very good, but to me was overly full sounding.  I kept thinking “this reminds me of the sound of better Grado cartridges”.  

Thanks for the comments and comparisons and keep them coming.  

For me it always comes back to something very simple: they can’t all be equally good while sounding so different.  My comments are about the differences, as I hear them, in direct comparison (same setup, same music).  As I commented, the Shure sounds impressive at first and would probably continue to sound impressive.  Additionally, if for some strange reason I were ever forced to use a Shure, I would not feel the urge to run out of the room or to cut back on music listening time.  It is a very good and enjoyable cartridge.  However, in direct comparison to the Decca the differences are pretty obvious.  So, what to make of this?  Again, they can’t both be equally good at replicating the sound of music if they each sound so different from the other.  

**** I really can't hear what you describe no matter what genre I throw at them. ****

So, in what ways does the Ultra sound different from the Decca to you?  Or, are you saying that to you the Shure sounds just like, or is the equal of the Decca?  

Thanks for the comments.

Something I said?  😊

Edit:

*** component moved the recorded music closer of farther away ***

“of” should read “or”

*** lower “miss” *** should read “lower mids”

Haste makes waste.  Sorry.

Yeah, some do; and those are just one of the different types of knuckleheads in our hobby ☺️. All music benefits from a great sound system.

I may be mistaken, but if I interpret what you are saying correctly, and if the reference to HP means to suggest that he was that type, I would have to disagree. My sense is that his aim was to evaluate and rate components according to how, in his view, a component moved the recorded music closer of farther away from the sound of “unamplified music in a real space”. From that standpoint, I believe he was absolutely correct in his methodology. There are simply too many unknown variables in the sound of music that is amplified and/or recorded in a recording studio. This makes it almost impossible to judge how close the recording gets to a stated reference. That is certainly not to say that studio recordings don’t benefit from superb sound system. They do, big time. Makes for fantastic ear candy. In my experience most of what I consider to be, or are presented as, “audiophile” recordings do not aim for the sound of unamplified music in a real space. Like you, I usually can’t stand the music either. There are exceptions like the Reference Recordings, Chesky and others. Moreover, a good number of HP’s reference recordings were studio recordings. Don’t mean to be an apologist for a blowhard like HP, but the man had great ears, IMO. Good taste in Classical music. Rotten taste outside that genre. Re hip-hop:

No closet fan, but I don’t dismiss the genre at all. Sometimes there is nothing like a great groove with great attitude. Attitude being the operative word when it comes to hip-hop or rap. This is certainly not the thread for it, but much could be said about how the reliance on attitude relates to musical value; not to mention many other cultural values. IMO, and sorry for the rant.

On the 2Pac cut the Ultra 500 sounds impressive with an attractive fullness and “big” quality.....at first, and for a little while. Then, some of what I have always disliked about Shure’s starts to become obvious. It’s like a blanket has been thrown over the sound. A light thin blanket, like what my wife calls our “summer comforter” as opposed to the heavier winter comforter. The upper most harmonic content is missing from instrumental sounds. Everything sounds a little covered. What was an attractive fullness becomes an unnatural, borderline tubby, corpulent quality in the upper bass/lower miss that creeps into the midrange and obscures midrange detail; as if the xover point on the subs was set too high. Then there is the overall gray(ish) tonal quality that I have always disliked about Shure’s and many MM’s; a general lack of instrumental color in timbres. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Shure is a really good cartridge; but, they can’t all be great while sounding so different.

All of the above becomes very obvious when switching to the Decca. This, after compensating for the perceived lower volume level with the Decca and adjusting to the fairly dramatic difference in the “size” of the sound. With the Decca the sound is more contained and less opulent; it sounds less “impressive” at first. When the adjustment is made the good stuff happens. One hears much better harmonic extension with sounds no longer having an obvious high frequency “ceiling”. Vocals sound more natural with more obvious differences in the sound of individual singers. Musical interaction is more obvious and contributes more to the performance. Listen to the repeated synth bass line playing a rhythm that one usually associates with a scratching turntable. Indistinct and tubby with the Shure. Delineated and percussive with the Decca. Or, the synth “handclaps”. With the Shure my reaction was “what is that sound supposed to be?”. With the Decca it was obvious that, as bad as the sampled sound was, it was trying to sound like handclaps. Overall, a musically cleaner sound. I suppose one could argue that the Shure suits that music better than the Decca and some will surely prefer it with this music. I don’t.

On the Barber recording and in keeping with the “unamplified in real space” premise the differences are far greater. There is simply far more nuance in just about every aspect of that music, performance and recording; especially in the area of instrumental timbre realism. Except, perhaps, in the area of “attitude”....in the more usual, urban sense. Never mind that we have something that is much closer to what can justifiably be called a reference. In short, for me, all that I wrote about the 2Pac X 10. The Decca is in a different league.

Thanks for the comparison. Very interesting. I would bet that in spite of the fact that I think the Decca is a better cartridge than the Palladian, differences between the Shure and the Palladian are even greater. That was not a hint 😉....really.

Apology for the incorrect use of it’s/its.  Twice I overrode the spellchecker; apparently it still won ☹️.

Good to see new activity here. As halcro knows I have never been a big fan of Shure cartridges. While I have admired the things that they do well like the great tracking and sense of composure, in my systems they have always sounded dynamically polite and lacking natural instrumental color. I must say that I really enjoyed the sound of two of the three Shures being considered here. I may have to reconsider.

I completely agree with both your assessments of the cartridges even if I would describe what I hear somewhat differently. I listened to the V15 first and I found much to like. I liked the sound of Ronstadt’s voice with this cartridge a lot; for the wrong reasons, however (more on that later). But, instrumental sounds are missing high frequency content so they sound too covered. Not meaning to take liberties, but I think this may be one of the reasons that Halcro feels it sounds “more refined “ than the ML140. Perhaps also why Dover refers to it as “colored”. When missing highs instrumental sounds tend to sound more “full bodied”. The ML140, as Dover says, sounds clangy. There is an uneven emphasis of the upper mids/lower highs range that causes the piano and vibes to sound glangy. What I meant by “I liked it for the wrong reasons” is that I think that because of its reticence in the highs the V15 hides the effects on the high frequencies of the way the vocals were recorded. I would bet that they used the Aphex Aural Exciter on the vocals. It is commonly used on pop vocals and it has a distinctive sonic signature; like a high frequency halo that rides on top of the vocals. I find it annoying as it adds what to my ears is an unnatural harshness.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciter_(effect)

I think that the V15 masks those high frequency artifacts and the ML140 lays them bare and perhaps exaggerates them. I think this lets the V15 sound more refined by comparison.

The Ultra 500 strikes the best balance and I agree it is the best of the three. It’s tonal balance is actually closer to that of the V15 than the ML140, but not covered sounding and with more detail than the V15. It’s piano sound is by far the most natural with enough body and without the clanginess. One can still hear the processing on the vocals, but not nearly as much and doesn’t emphasize it like the ML does. Hadn’t heard this record in quite a while. Ronstadt sounds great; a nice sense of honesty and sincerity in her singing.

Yes, would be great to hear the Ultra compared to the Palladian even though the Decca is “King” in my book.

Thanks for the fun comparison.

More detailed comments forthcoming, but Princi and I are in complete agreement; mic overload and all.  

Makes sense; original is boron.

Good to know about your experience with Soundsmith and the 2000, Cleeds as mine will need retipping soon. Thanks!  Did you keep the original cantilever or did you replace with ruby or other?  It is a great cartridge as you say.

Best IN MY SYSTEM was probably a VDH Colibri loaned by a friend.  PITA to set up properly and, IMO, definitely tubes friendly.  I like VDH cartridges.  On my ET2, the best that I have owned is probably a tie between my Monster Sigma Genesis 2000 (ZYX) which is extremely synergistic with the ET2 and my Decca London Gold which I love but is VERY temperamental with noise issues.  

Hi Harold, no I do not have my own samples of either. My comments are strictly in reference to what I hear from the comparisons here. I am well aware of the limitations inherent in doing so this way, but interesting to me nonetheless. My turntable is a VPI TNT6 with Super Platter (string drive), double motor flywheel, SDS controller, ET2 (high pressure manifold) tonearm. Regards.