Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Your ears need to be insured for millions 💰Frogman....
Whilst I was recording the Victor Z1/SAS....I could clearly hear in my room....the "extra midrange juice of the Victor" that you picked up.
After recording it.....I realised that I had left the loading of the MM cartridge at 40K Ohms instead of the 60K Ohms that the Victors like...🥴

On playback however....through my iPad.....I heard it like Noromance did, with a richness that seemed to have an advantage over the Palladian so I uploaded it like that.....

I think we need to get ourselves ears like Frogman, Noromance......or at least try to get the same Stax/tube set....👅

It'll be interesting to see what you hear through your digital rig Noromance?
You listen on Tidal don't you?

Interesting notes @frogman . 
I'm recovering from illness so not able to listen through my digital rig. 
By colored I mean that I can hear a color superimposed over the recording like a thin veil. I know it's probably an odd description and perception.  Once I detect it in a setup, I hear it with every recording. Whether there are frequency response variations in the MM, I don't really notice on the phone but now I'm curious. Nevertheless, it sounds clearer and more live and exciting.

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

Should read:

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

Sorry.

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

Palladian/MIT:

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

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

Palladian/Victor:

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

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

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

Thanks, all.

Although on listening to both again......I don’t really know 🤔
The sound on my iPad is not quite what I hear ‘live’....?
Will be interesting to see what Frogman thinks......

I hear something similar to you Noromance......
This could be interesting....🧐

On my phone. Simon and Garfunkle sound more live with the Victor. The MC sounds more colorful initially ...until it just sounds colored and somewhat recessed. The MM is like opening the windows and hearing the live sound.

Judging from the ’views’.........there is quiet a bit of interest in the vintage Victor MM cartridges (and the London Decca Reference 😎).
The X-1 range of Victors are almost ’unobtanium’ and replacement styli are generally unavailable or unsatisfactory.
The Z1 Victors however are plentiful on the used market and are ’dirt’ cheap.
Jico makes a range of replacement styli for them with the SAS or Neo-SAS being the best (if they ever come into production again).

The Z1/SAS is a real challenger for the X-1.....😃

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge
Mounted in Vintage SAEC WE-8000/ST ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 Turntable

VICTOR Z1/SAS Vintage MM Cartridge
Mounted in Vintage SAEC WE-8000/ST ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 Turntable

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

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

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

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

Thanks again.

Good Golly Frogman......
I told you I didn't regret purchasing the Palladian.....😁
Perhaps I've been wrong all these years in thinking that the very best vintage MM cartridges of yesteryear can play on the same field as the best modern MCs......?

I'm determined though.....to use your ears (if you don't mind).....to tell me exactly which of my MM cartridges come closest to possessing the abilities of the Palladian in one-on-one 'Shoot-Outs'.

Before I do that though.....I'd like your opinion of how a vintage LOMC like the JMAS MIT-1 compares to the Palladian.

I just bought a wonderful piano recording of the 'Beethoven Appasionata' which was described by the Seller on Discogs as 'Very Good+' condition.
As you will hear...the disc has been 'churned' by some scalpel-like stylus and is going back to whence it came....🤬

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge
Mounted in Vintage SAEC WE-8000/ST ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor DD Turntable

JMAS MIT-1 LOMC Cartridge
Mounted in Vintage SAEC WE-8000/ST ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor DD Turntable

It's the rightly famous RCA Victor release of "The Royal Ballet" Gala Performances conducted by Ernest Ansermet.
No music lover should be without a copy....
HERE 

Excuse my ignorance, what´s that ` Ö` beautiful edition/pressing exactly ?

Palladian/Garrott/MR5:

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

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

Palladian/TK-7:

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

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to them Frogman....😎

Regards

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

I had hoped that Frogman would have divulged his analysis on the previous test......🤗

Let's try a different approach.....

If the $10,000 AS Palladian LOMC Cartridge is taken as the 'Benchmark' (in my system).....how close can cheaper cartridges get to it...?

The Palladian is a beautifully built modern Meg-Buck LOMC cartridge that owes much to the Classic Vintage Fidelity Research FR-7 Series of cartridges from 35 years ago.
Instead of the current 'fad' for Boron cantilevers.... the Palladian utilises an aluminium one with a nude Fine-Line stylus in a 'bush-hammered' Titanium body.

The Vintage Signet TK-7LCa MM Cartridge utilises a Beryllium cantilever with a nude Line Contact stylus.
The Signet can be had for approx. $600-$800 NOS on Ebay (if one is patient enough).

Here you can decide if $9,200 price differential is worth it....🤔

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge
Mounted in Vintage SAEC WE-8000/ST ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.

VINTAGE SIGNET TK-7LCa MM Cartridge
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.

Halcro, I have both tube and SS amps and pre-amps . Speakers often like one combo or the other , no doubt impedance matching of entire system IMO . I agree 1000% with frogman on the Synergy . Both the fun and PITA
of the audio hobby aka addiction .

The 450 was mounted on a friends Rega P8 , the fabulous 880 arm on that jewel no doubt had something to do with it . He is also a master of TT set-up as well .In any event it did what needed to be done quite well for $250 .Natch, there is always something better .

But it lacked something in the mid range, detail and nuances.

I agree Harold.....

Interesting Schubert....
Maybe it's System Synergy as Frogman says.....?
Do you have Tube or SS amplification?

I have always disliked AT carts, including Signet even when I could get them for free .
A good friend of mine whose ear I trust told me the ATVM540ML was coherent top to bottom , better than VM750 .I went over with demo LP’s in hand to school him about his $250 cartridge .

He took me to school , 540 is all of that, by far best AT I ever heard .His TT is a Rega 8 which is formidable .

Frogman, many years ago I had the AT-ANV150 and it truly was excellent, very very balanced sound, the high register in particular, one of the very finest I have experienced. But it lacked something in the mid range, detail and nuances. I never went excited with so after a hundred hour play I decided to sell it, for a good price.

But it was better than my AT-ML180 in the high register. I started to wonder why that AT´s flagship w/ a very special stylus tip and ceramic top lacks finesse in high frequency area... maybe there was something wrong with my set-up. Finally I thought that ML180 may benefit from extra damping and it did, as seen here:

https://ucarecdn.audiogon.com/e830b57c-0609-4c78-bca4-d41b9402cbda/-/autorotate/yes/

Now its high register is the same league as ANV150´s. Still, however it lacks the magic I have heard with certain others.

My buddy in Norway has covered the whole body of his DECCA Jubilee with that damping material, he says that makes a huge difference : )
Image a dark gray blanket on the Jubilee, looks so funny but not for everyone´s taste : )
So both AT-ML180 and the Jubilee benefit from extra damping in certain systems. And it´s a well known fact that the DECCA carts need well damped arms.

The AT-ANV150 will fit your system just fine, I believe. Also Audio-Technica´s latest technology VM760 is worth to try:
https://www.audio-technica.com/cms/cartridges/6637a2f0787470c3/index.html

We heard previously how my cheapest vintage (NOS) MM cartridge (Victor 4MD-20X) compares to my most expensive LOMC (AS Palladian).

We certainly can't expect a 'shock' result at this scale.....but I can still happily listen to the 4MD-20X all day long....🤗

The question remains though......how close to the Mega-Buck LOMCs can cheap vintage MMs actually come?
The Signet MR-5.0 LC is an interesting cartridge......
It sports a nude Line Contact stylus on a Beryllium cantilever just like the Signet TK-7LCa, but why have the two models especially when the parent company have their own competition with the AT-180ML.....?

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge
Mounted in SAEC WE-8000/ST ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

GARROTT P77 MM Cartridge with Jico Neo-SAS(R) Stylus
Mounted in DV-507/II on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

SIGNET MR5.0 LC MM Cartridge
Mounted in DV-507/II on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

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

Victor X-1 and X-1II have Beryllium/Shibata whilst X-1IIE has Titanium hollow pipe cantilever and nude Elliptical stylus. 

Don´t get me wrong, I just found my ML-180 outperforming all the MM AT´s I have tried over the years, hence my expression bad. The same goes for my statement about TOTL ACUTEX models, they are superb performers as you have discovered too.  But not magical IME. And there may very well be a subtle difference between the samples. 

That X-1IIE with titanium pipe cantilever and Shibata stylus ?

Love it Frogman.......👌
I could read your descriptions all day long.....🗣
I’m off to buy some more cartridges to keep your contributions coming..

Victors:

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

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

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

Re the Sony/SPU Silver:

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

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

For over 10 years I've been a big fan of the Japanese Victor Company and their design engineering 'know-how' in the 'Golden Age' of analogue.
It started when I bought one of their vintage TT-81 DD Turntables followed by their top-of-the-line TT-101 Motor Unit shortly afterwards.

I now have probably a dozen of their cartridges (THE BEST) and every product of their's that I've tried has been worthy.

For over two years I have been looking for a good example of their X-1 MM Cartridge with its original stylus/cantilever assembly and finally found one (with a bonus SPARE replacement stylus).
I couldn't believe my luck when just a few weeks ago....an original Victor X-1II Cartridge came up for auction and when I received it....its condition was almost MINT!

I now had the Victor TOP THREE- X-1, X-1II and X-1IIE....

Frogman seemed to be impressed with the sound of the Victors he heard in my previous comparisons.....and he wondered which was the best of the three...?
Perhaps he can now tell us.....? 🤗

VICTOR X-1 MM Cartridge
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

VICTOR X-1II MM Cartridge
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

VICTOR X-1IIE MM Cartridge
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

Thanks Jeff...😃
I’ve heard nothing but good reports about the SPU A95 and it’s high on my list of ’to try’ cartridges......

I think the TK7SU sounded pretty good on one of my comparisons.....
I hope you heard it?

Would welcome some feedback or thoughts from you on any others of these cartridge comparisons....👍

Kind Regards
Henry

Halcro,
Well done my friend and keep up the good work! I've purchased a Ortofon SPU A95, if you have a chance to try one I'd suggest it. 

Signet 7TK-SU is still my current favorite on my Acoustic Signature Ascona and SME 3012R. 

Excellent, those are appropriate values. Actually I knew you are aware of correct (lower) values... We discussed this many years ago in the infamous MM thread and that caused some stir for some people as it just recently had become a hype using very high impedance values : )
Hypes come and hypes go... Great times. Thanks again for confirmation. 

I was loading both cartridges at approx. 33K Ohms with zero added Capacitance.....

SPU Silver sounds thin and spluttery on much of the pipe blowing, especially in the higher frequencies.

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

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

Wait a minute. My AT-ML180 doesn´t sound that bad. Probably because of its special design with ceramic top and miniature stylus tip it may very well be extremely sensitive to where it´s attached ? Mine has a thin layer of damping sheet between top and aluminium wand and this slightly improves SQ. I´m sure that it will perform better, sound balance and high register presentation with an other headshell/wand. Additionally, IME AT´s best models benefit from very low capacitance and impedance values, I use 120 pF and 33 kOhm. What are your setting now Henry ?  Furthermore, in general on that sensitive level even different samples may have subtle differences ?
Its overall performance is not the finest of cartridges that I have heard though.

Let's hear how a vintage 'Classic' LOMC cartridge like the Sony XL-55 compares with a modern-day 'Classic' LOMC like the SPU Silver Meister.
The XL-55 features a rather UNIQUE DESIGN utilising a 'coreless' armature coil in a 'figure 8' pattern with an aluminium cantilever extending through a carbon-fibre 'stub' pipe.

VINTAGE SONY XL-55 LOMC Cartridge
Mounted in Vintage FR-66S ToneArm on TW Acustic Raven AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable

ORTOFON SPU SILVER MEISTER LOMC Cartridge 
Mounted in Vintage FR-66S ToneArm on TW Acustic Raven AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable

Thanks Frogman....and HAPPY NEW YEAR 🎉 to you and those who are 'listening to my cartridges' 🧐

Very interesting analysis once again and you're right.....it IS interesting how differently we 'hear' or 'react' to certain qualities in recorded sound.
I for one....can't hear the differences you have highlighted between the two cartridges....🤔
To me....they sound almost identical !!

I agree that this Leonard Cohen live recording sounds wonderful  but I can't discover on what machines it was recorded....other than Bob Ludwig did the Mastering.
As it was first released on CD and DVD, it's a safe bet that it was digitally recorded but it sure ranks in my books as the 'warmest' digital recording I've yet heard.
So much so....that when I heard it on my audio buddy's all-tube system in Munich 2017.....it was 'unlistenable'....😱
I felt guilty as he had bought the album on my recommendation....🤬

150 is clearer with more insight and I prefer it. There is something sweet and SPU Gold about the 180 though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both great sounding cartridges.

Thanks, halcro; and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

What other outcome would there be from a bunch of old rockers ?

You DID notice how the 2M Black was handily outvoted by the 150ANV in Fremer’s ‘blind’ listening test......?🧐

Quite believable Invictus.....
I’m not the greatest fan of the AT sound (except in their US Signet guise)....agreeing that their midrange is typically lacking in your well-described “illumination and technicolor” 👍

This particular comparison is strictly for identical ‘model’ cartridges by the same manufacturer....from different eras.....
I think they’re pretty similar in frequency response....but what you can’t discern in the YouTube ‘sound’ is the slightly greater ‘magic’ in the 180ML.....

I'm going to be 100% honest here, Ortofon 2M Black is a much superior cartridge to either of the ATs. The midrange illumination and technicolor on the 2M Black is absolutely magic. 

I have been buying vintage cartridges (of all types) for over 10 years....
Not because I don’t like the prices of NEW ones....but because I have found the ’sound’ of cartridges made in ’The Golden Age of Analogue’ (70s to 90s) to be superior to ’modern’ ones.
Most Reviewers will have you believe that there have been advances (both in materials and technology) over the last 40 years but that is not true for cartridges IMO......nor for Tonearms or Turntables for that matter.
All the serious ’advanced’ styli profiles were developed decades ago and utilised consistently in MM designs as well as MCs.
All the cantilever materials such as diamond, sapphire, ruby, boron, carbon-fibre were also invented and used in the ’Golden Age’.
But the ’Golden Age’ had access to materials and technologies that are no longer available......
Beryllium cantilevers anyone.....?
Despite what some designers might tell you about the physical properties of boron that make it the ’best’ material for cantilevers......the vast majority of my favourite cartridges have ’beryllium’ cantilevers which are no longer available.
Hollow-tube aluminium....? tapered tube.....? carbon-fibre/beryllium composites.....?
None of these is commercially available today......

If so many advances have been made over the last 40 years......it stands to reason that cartridges made today would ’wipe the floor’ with vintage models......?

The following ’Shoot-Out’ is between the top-of-the-line Audio Technica AT150ANV (made in ’Limited Edition’ a few years ago) and the 35 year old top-of-the-line Audio Technica AT180ML/OCC.
The AT150ANV famously beat out 8 other cartridges (including the $9000 Ortofon Anna LOMC) in a ’blind’ listening test conducted by Michael Fremer.

VINTAGE AUDIO TECHNICA AT-180ML/OCC MM Cartridge
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

MODERN AUDIO TECHNICA AT-150ANV MM Cartridge

Perfect 'score' once again Frogman....👍
I agree 100% with all that you say (and hear)......
Of course.....there are some who would shrug their shoulders UNLESS the lowly 4MD-20X actually BETTERED the $10,000 Palladian...🤯
Life is not quite like that........
I merely wanted to reassure those who are on a tight budget vis-a-vis cartridges.....that cartridge designers NEVER set out to produce a 'poor' sounding cartridge.
They are merely constrained to do their best within strict budget constraints and this example may be the 'widest' difference you may hear between the 'Uber' cartridges and the 'Budget' ones.....

You will hear with coming MM comparisons against the Palladian......that competition can get a whole lot closer....🤗

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, halcro.

Edit:

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

In line with the preceding statement......I promised earlier, to post a comparison between my most expensive LOMC Cartridge and my cheapest MM.
The Acoustical Systems Palladian LOMC Cartridge is beautifully designed and made and costs $10,000.
This exercise is not intended to embarrass or shame the Palladian as I don't regret buying it and will continue to listen to it.
I have compared it to the Lyra Atlas, the ZYX UNIverse and the Dynavector XV-1s in my system and prefer it.

The JVC 4MD-20X cost me $110 a few months ago for a NOS example, and was a lower-cost model than the 4MD-1X which is somewhat better.

As I discovered via feedback from Frogman......my aural memory for detail is not good as I tend to just listen 'for enjoyment'......
In other words.....I can enjoy many different cartridge presentations without consciously separating out the detailed differences.
To compare any of these videos here.....I urge you to listen on a computer (rather than a phone or tablet) and open up two windows (or three if there are three cartridges).
By switching between videos of the two cartridges (at the click of a button).... 'in real time' .....you will hear the differences magnified.

ACOUSTICAL SYSTEMS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge
Mounted in SAEC WE-8000/ST ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

JVC 4MD-20X Vintage MM Cartridge 
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

Thank you Invictus and Harold for your kind words 😎
You're right Harold......
WRITING about the 'sound' of different cartridges is such a subjective exercise and ultimately proves nothing to anyone......
I wanted to 'objectify' this process (if possible via the YouTube limitations) by allowing for 'real-time' comparisons of cartridges on a unified 'real-world' system as heard from the 'listener's seat'.
Most cartridge comparisons on YouTube take the phono-feed directly to a DAC or USB feed which 'digitises' the analogue signal and removes the entire 'playing system' from the equation.
You thus don't get to hear Phono-Stage, Preamp. Amps, Cables, Speakers nor ROOM effects in those videos.
With my videos.....what you hear is what you get.....except in reality I get to hear it in far better resolution, detail and quality 👅

I would not be so cavalier as to 'wipe out' MC Cartridges based on my experiences.
I have bought (and kept) dozens of LOMCs over the years and still enjoy many of them alongside my favourite MMs.
The ones you will hear here (except for the Denon) have a place in any decent system IMO.
No....the principle reason I have campaigned against the 'supposed' superiority of MC Cartridges is that there is no 'inherent' superiority of one form of cartridge over another in my experience.
So when some 'boutique'  garage-based two-man businesses produce their 'hand-made' (because MC cartridges HAVE to be) latest exotica for $10,000, $15,000.....$20,000 🤯
I am outraged......
Those cartridges simply do not necessarily sound any better than cheap MM models....especially those designed and manufactured in the 70s and 80s (The Golden Age of Analogue).

There will inevitably be a legion of well-heeled audiophiles who can afford the best and 'expect' that the prices they pay will be reflected in the 'sounds' that they hear!
Without 'objective' assessments able to be agreed upon......the 'street-cred' they have with their audiophile buddies by dropping the names Atlas, Colibri, Koetsu, Miyajima, ZYX et al is all they really need 🤗