Dear
@frogman LDR is indeed a v special cartridge, definitely worth considering if funds permit. BTW I think @halcro should get some $$ from London for all the promotional job he has done ;)
It is stimulating (as always!) to read your impressions. Interestingly how we interpret "organizing" here. For me, 15K was slightly better organizing the sounds in the sound spectrum while for you in space :) Sort of complementary views: frequency vs localization. I re-listened several times but honestly could not detect the pipe organ moving in front/behind the orchestra, but I'm admittedly not very sensitive to spatial information (have definitely sth to learn here). In some churches the organ is actually at the back or on a side. Interesting how this particular record was recorded, where was the organ? Halcro, any chance to dig that info out :) ?
|
Most people don't have the opportunity to hear different types of cartridges side by side in the same System. Our aural memories are notoriously 'short'..... If you replace your aged MM cartridge with a brand new MC cartridge....it is natural that you will hear a difference and be impressed 🤩 Very few do it in reverse and change out an 'old' MC to replace it with a 'new' MM design.... Many have difficulty understanding those of us who have multiple cartridges (let alone multiple turntables and arms) as most people assume that you would listen only to the BEST cartridge in any collection. I don't hold the view that there is a single 'BEST' cartridge out of the thousands that have been produced over the last 50 years or so 🤔 To me, every really good cartridge (of whatever type).....offers a potentially 'different' presentation of the same recording. I can happily listen to all these 'variations' without missing 'the others' because I gain different perspectives and nuances into the actual recordings. Here are four very different cartridges playing the same track. I selected this Bob Marley track so that you DON'T concentrate on the 'reality' of the instruments or other artifacts...but just sit back and HEAR the differing presentations and hopefully gain some appreciation for the beauties of the magnetic phono cartridge 🤗 VINTAGE MM CARTRIDGEVINTAGE LOMC CARTRIDGECURRENT MI CARTRIDGECURRENT LOMC CARTRIDGE |
Observations - Victor XI - enoyable to listen to but horribly coloured. Enjoyment wears off rapidly due to the colourations. Sony XL88D - wondered why it sounded so grainy, then I went to the start and confirmed Victor/SAEC combo. Sorry Halcro - this cartridge in my view needs to go on the Cobra/Raven. Bucketloads of musical detail, nuance, but grain prevented enjoyment. If you cant put it on the Cobra, try the Dynavector. I think you will find the Dynavector puts flesh on the bones and much more solid foundation than the SAEC. The XL88D was mounted on my TT in the early 80's - the SAEC/Audiocraft arms were easily surpassed by the Dynavector/Sony combo. ( see TAS vol 8 June 1983 ). Decca - most enjoyable Palladium - disappointing on this track. Seems coloured, closed in, lacking openness. Many have difficulty understanding those of us who have multiple cartridges (let alone multiple turntables and arms) as most people assume that you would listen only to the BEST cartridge in any collection. As an owner of many cartridges/arms/turntables, I would temper that by saying that the various combos have to be to a common standard. I find in practise that if a cartridge is too coloured or idiosyncratic, I lose interest in listening. I don't hold the view that there is a single 'BEST' cartridge out of the thousands that have been produced over the last 50 years or so 🤔 True, nothings perfect, but in sifting through the options I look for musical enjoyment, and least distruction of musical timbre, timing etc. Very few do it in reverse and change out an 'old' MC to replace it with a 'new' MM design.... I did. After following Rauls MM/MC thread for some time I purchased a Victor X1 ( mint with original cantilever/stylus ) and Glanz MFG61. Dont listen to either of them any more. The only non MC's I would listen to long term would be the Decca and upper end of Soundsmith range which I like. |
Thanks for the interesting comments Dover 🤔 I don't think I hear the same things as you do....or perhaps, I don't perceive them the same way...? When you say the Victor X-1II is "horribly coloured".....I perceive it as a typically 'MM presentation' compared to that of a MC. Bob and the ladies are pushed back towards the band compared to the forward projection of them with the Sony XL-88D. There is also a 'rounding off' and softening of his voice in comparison again with the Sony..... Whilst you elect to call it "coloured".....I hear it as 'added presence' and 'midrange body' which the typical MC cartridge rarely gets right. The extended 'detail' with the percussion (particularly on the edges) is to me, just a common 'trick' of most MCs intended to impress the listeners and convince them that they are hearing more information....🤥 If you listen carefully......you're not 🤗 Enjoyment with the Victor, for me....doesn't wear off. Your comments re: the Sony XL-88D are more puzzling..... Firstly, I simply don't hear "the grain" you mention 😶 Last year, when you heard the Sony XL-88D in the heavy FR-S3 headshell on the SAEC Tonearm, you commented: Then comparing the Sony XL88D to the Decca - wow. More transparent and the majesty of the performance and the completeness of the full orchestral spectrum conveyed by the Sony is fabulous. There appears to be more chest/body with the choristers from the Decca, but the vocals from uppermids to top end on the Sony appear far more transparent. As the full orchestra comes in the Sony is simply wonderful, the most complete cartridge for me of the three..
At this point I am done with comparisons - could you please just send me the Sony for Xmas. Now back to the music.... What has changed....? |
@halcro
Victor - it appears smoother here than my sample. On my system the Victor seems technicolored, as in false sharpness - oversatuated you might say if you were a photographer. On your demo it is easier to listen to. What I mean by coloured is it appears to sound warm and comfy, but lacks openness and upper frequency extension. Remember the old Quad filters where you could tip the top down and bottom up. I dont know the record, so I dont know if this is correct.
Sony XL88D sounds very grainy compared to your earlier demos. Maybe your VTA is out. I think we hear the same thing though - you describe it as "extended detail" to me sounds more open ( irrespective of actual detail ). Please check your tracking weight and VTA, somethings not right. I assume nothing else has changed in your system. Have you had other cartridges on the arm since we last heard the Sony ??
At least we can agree on the Decca, so all is not lost.
As an aside I have been rolling through a few cartridges on my FR64S lately, primarily to see whats worth keeping, and one learning was that it is so much easier to clean cartridges when you can take the headshell off. Honestly I dont think it is possible to properly clean a cartridge without removing it.
|
As an aside I have been rolling through a few cartridges on my FR64S lately, primarily to see whats worth keeping, and one learning was that it is so much easier to clean cartridges when you can take the headshell off. Honestly I dont think it is possible to properly clean a cartridge without removing it. I hear ya brother...... And you're not wrong 👍 Not only is it difficult to properly clean a cartridge whilst it's mounted in a tonearm.... It's impossible to INSPECT the condition of the stylus. It's one thing to CLEAN your stylus....it's quite another to ENSURE the stylus has been properly cleaned 🧐 To do this....a minimum 60x LUPE is required. With it's own LED LIGHTS you can see whether the 'crud' has been fully removed and whether the diamond is shiny. Note: It won't be able to show whether the stylus is 'worn'. A professional microscope and experience is needed for that. For years I have been using a soft-bristle brush to firstly wipe the stylus from front to back (as recommended) followed by a dip in MAGIC ERASER followed by a dip in ONZO ZERODUST. It was only after the arrival of my 60xLupe that I saw the 'hairs' and 'dirt' often left on the stylus by the BRUSH 😱 This detritus was often difficult to remove even with the Magic Eraser and Zerodust so that a wet clean with Isopropyl Alcohol was the only successful remedy. I now NEVER use a brush...... Only the Magic Eraser and Zerodust followed by the 60x Lupe inspection. And this is done after EVERY listening session.....🤗 |
@halcro OP
Just as an aside really, as I'd endeavoured to listen to your various presentations - they sound rather 'unfavourable' when I compare them to those YouTube offerings of e.g. @whitecamaro.
Yet people even on this amp thread had their own mentioning as regards to room and microphone used, and the resulting effects.
I'm using the same listening tool(s) so...
In short, could it be, your mic/setup could be improved to achieve some better over-all sound quality? 🤔
M. 🇿🇦
|
Hope everyone is well and staying healthy. Thanks for another interesting comparison, Halcro.
The mighty Decca!
In short, as concerns sonic observations and conclusions I am in complete agreement with Dover. The most enjoyable and as I believe is in keeping with all my prior comments about this great cartridge:
**** musical enjoyment, and least distruction of musical timbre, timing etc. ****
In order of preference (per above standard)::
Decca
Palladian
Sony
Victor
(notice the double spacing after Decca 😉)
Both Victor and Sony exhibit way too much sibilance on the vocals and, the Victor in particular, an unnatural dryness in high percussion sounds. The Victor sounds downright harsh in that frequency range. I am tempted to say that the Sony would place second were it not for the harshness in the highs, but the slightly higher volume level (mismatch) of the Sony track compared to the others surely contributes unfairly to its perceived opulent quality (“bucketloads of detail”?). Where I disagree with Dover is that I don’t find the Victor enjoyable at all due to the unpleasant dryness in the highs and sibilance. While the prominence of these qualities crosses the line into harshness territory with the Victor, I wonder if the Sony’s somewhat softer way with these same qualities are what Dover hears as “graininess”?
The Decca is a killer cartridge, IMO. It handles the highs in a beautifully controlled way. Little or no unnatural dryness or harshness. With the Victor and the Sony there is a perception of so much activity in that range that the sibilance in the lead and background vocals, combined with the dryness and harshness in high percussion (high hat) create a kind of unpleasant sonic confusion. The Decca keeps things in order for better word intelligibility and overall musical ease. At the opposite end of the frequency spectrum, the Decca is more articulate and reveals more of the bass player’s wonderfully bouncy and propulsive musical contribution. The Decca simply sounds more like the real thing than the others.
For me, and as always, this “reality” is ultimately the deciding factor for preference of one over the other; and I am baffled by the reference to this “reality” as an “artifact”. Truth is that it takes (should take) much more destruction of musical information to keep one from enjoying a good music performance as deciphered by any one of these cartridges. We have our fun picking apart their different sonic presentations when they are all to a high standard. However, if the comparison must made, the Decca kills once again!
Best to all.
|
@justmetoo Thanks for the feedback...... I appreciate it 🤗 Yes....I understand and agree with you that professionally recorded YouTube Videos make mine sound feeble 🥴 HERE is one of many videos by Kenrick Sound which sounds even better than those of @whitecamaross 🤩 I contacted Kenji to ask him what equipment he used....? Schoeps discrete mic pre and latest capsule-US$5000
Nagra Seven digital recorder - US$6200 And that's just for the sound.....🤯 You must understand that the sound recording for these videos, is done separately to the filming (as you can see in the Kenrick Sound Video where the camera is moving around the equipment whilst the 'sound' stays central) and the two are matched up in the computer afterwards. There are probably 'Sound Manipulation' Programs available once you're doing it this way.....just as there is PhotoShop and others available for video 🤔 I am merely using my iPad with its inbuilt microphone and zero balancing or manipulation..... If I was interested in 'monetising' my Videos or if it was integral to my Business or Livelihood......I might have considered investing the considerable funds for all the equipment required. You have now managed to 'shame' my efforts and I am depressed 😥 Just kidding....😝 I can only proffer the excuse that the aim of MY videos was to see if the differences in 'phono cartridges' could be heard via the YouTube medium, and to the extent that Posters have been able to hear these and comment on them.....I've achieved my aim. As I was attempting to demonstrate the differences only between 'cartridges'.....I could have used a direct feed to a High-Res Recorder/Dac and digitise the sound like Michael Fremer does. The differences in cartridges would have been far more pronounced and 'legitimate' this way and there are in fact, many videos on YouTube doing cartridge comparisons this way. However this method to me, loses the 'reality' of hearing the sound as it is played on a system within a real Listening Room.... Somehow I think I'm missing some of that realism in Kenji's wonderful recordings.....🤔 Thanks again for the valuable feedback. |
Hi Dear,
thank you for your fair reply and explaining the prevailing detail(s).
No harm done, I understand 🤩
Not a day without learning something else, eh? 😉 💐
Michélle 🇿🇦 |
Alright Frogman.......
Enough already......😴
You win....!!
The LDR reigns supreme!! 💪
The only question is... why you haven't bought one for yourself already...?🤔
And thanks for decimating my Victor X-1II 😢
What am I supposed to do now?!!
I wonder though....why the Victors received positive comments from you in past comparisons?
|
That’s a very good question, Halcro. First, not all my comments about the Victors have been positive. More on that in a moment.
My past positive comments have been mostly (if not entirely?) in comparison to cartridges other than the ones being compared this time around. I think I have been consistent in my appreciation and preference for the LDR and, to a lesser degree, the Palladian. So, any past positive comments about the Victor were not necessarily in an absolute sense and in comparison to lesser cartridges it does indeed have positive qualities. Moreover, none of the other cartridges in past comparisons were (IMO) in the league of the LDR nor Palladian. Not to mention, and importantly, the music being played was different.
As I know you know, some cartridges (all gear) perform better than others when reproducing certain frequency ranges and/or specific difficulties in those ranges. To my way of thinking it is entirely possible that the way the Marley track was recorded presents specific difficulties in the highs that tax the abilities of a particular cartridge in ways that may not be an issue with other recordings or for other cartridges.
Having said all that, here is a comment I made on 1/03/2019 about the Victor X-1 II:
**** 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. ****
This is my most recent comment (earlier today) about the X-1 II:
**** Both Victor and Sony exhibit way too much sibilance on the vocals and, the Victor in particular, an unnatural dryness in high percussion sounds. The Victor sounds downright harsh in that frequency range. ****
I would call that consistent.
Two other comments I made about the Victor in previous comparisons:
**** However, a little “Technicolor” and with a bit of nasality in the midrange. ****
**** 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”. ****
With apology for the liberty taken, here is yesterday’s comment by Dover about the Victor:
**** Victor - it appears smoother here than my sample. On my system the Victor seems technicolored, as in false sharpness - oversatuated you might say if you were a photographer. ****
Again, I would call that consistent.
Why don’t I own one? In short, ET2. Perhaps (probably) unnecessary, but the combination scares me 😱; and I am not about to give up my ET2 😍.
Best wishes and thank you again.
|
No question Frogman...... You have been super consistent in all your evaluations and comments regarding not only the LDR and Palladian.....but virtually all the cartridges you've heard more than once. That's sooo annoying because I don't think you've liked any MM cartridges I've played for you 🥴 ?! Perhaps you're just anti-MM......? 😢 Can you recall off-hand which of my MM cartridges offended you the LEAST.....? Or should I best troll through the Thread to try and discover....? But the combination scares me 😱 I think you're wise to be cautious....and I can't recall reading of any firsthand experiences with the LDR on a parallel-tracker? But it might just be a blessed match....🙏 Thanks as always for your valuable and incisive a nalyses...
And keep safe whilst practicing 'social-distancing' 🗣 |
It was April 27th 1979 when Bob Marley and the Wailers stepped on stage at the Horden Pavilion in Sydney. Together with 2000 other rabid fans...my wife and I sat (and stood) through the greatest concert of our lives up till then....and it has remained so up till now 👏 After 41 years and hundreds of live concerts......NOTHING has come close to the performance, sound, electricity and perfection of that singular experience. To this day, I can still recall every note, every vibration, every flapping of my stomach-lining and the memory of repeating to myself...."I can't believe this"....🤯 Just as I can still recall every mouthful of the famed bouillabaisse we tasted in 1972 whilst seated in a bistro in the Old Port of Marseille....certain iconic experiences never leave you. Here are a few performances captured of Bob Marley which demonstrates I think....how the differences between 'Live' and 'Recorded' music can easily be reproduced via YouTube Videos. BOB MARLEY 1BOB MARLEY 2BOB MARLEY 3BOB MARLEY 4Enjoy....... |
@halcro I love Bob Marley myself, there is Bob Marley and everyone else below. I was a kid in the 70's (less than 10 years old) who visited Jamaica and learned about Marley.
A few years ago I was walking along a beach in Santa Barbara, CA and I heard some singer playing a guitar surrounded my a lot of very young kids. He sounded
identical to Bob Marley. I got closer to see it was one of his sons, Ziggy Marley.
A few years ago I discovered someone who I think is a giant in the same level as Bob Marley, his name is Fela Kuti. The Bob Marley of Africa. Check him out if you are not familiar. |
+1 Fela Kuti! Check him out.
Halcro, me anti MM? Not at all; way too strong a characterization. I own several MM's and enjoy my Acutex'. I recently purchased a M320 STR III that I have yet to mount. While I obviously do have my preferences, it's probably fair to say that, overall, I have made about as many negative/positive comments about the MM cartridges presented here as I have about MC's. With two notable exceptions, of course 😁. Btw, the only MM's that I can honestly say "offend" me are the non-Ultra Shures. Can't stand their bland color-less presentation of timbre 😝. Come to think of it, it has been some of the vintage MC's that have offended me most with their overly tight and unnatural high frequencies:
At the risk of seeming indulgent; again, quotes from past comparisons. May help clarify my general feelings about MM vs MC's and help answer your question about which MM (and MF) cartridges I have liked:
**** To my ears it is MM’s that tend to have a fuller, more tonally saturated sound; what I would describe as “lush”. I have also found that the sometimes exaggerated high frequency “clarity” of some MC’s creates a better balance in my all-tube amplification chain which tends, itself, to be on the lush side. Even the best of my MM’s can be a little too lush and dark in my system without enough clarity and control in the highs. The problem for me is that while I love the midrange “neutrality” of good MM’s they tend to go a little too far in that direction; almost as if they rob timbres of some natural colors by seeming to reduce the high frequency extension needed to balance out the very full and dense midrange character. MC’s tend to put the emphasis on clarity/detail in the highs leaving the midrange to sound too lean. A very difficult balance to get right.
Assessing dynamics is complicated since timbre neutrality affects our perception of it. All I can say is that to me that wonderful “coiled spring” aliveness and sense of the music always moving forward is generally better served by good MC’s. ****
**** Audio Technica (180):
More distant perspective as if sitting further back in the room. The most linear and without the nasality. Tonally the most realistic. Colorless the way some Maggies are...probably too colorless; music has color. I want to say it’s my favorite, but the X1 is probably the most fun to listen with. ****
**** I think that the Glanz, overall, gives the Palladian the best “run for its money” of all of them.
The Glanz is excellent and in some ways I like its tonal balance on the sound of the piano a little better than the Palladian which sounds a little “tinkly” at times. This is a result or the Glanz having a fuller tonal balance which also adds more weight to the bass and a seductive dusky quality to the voice. While the piano has more realistic weight it also has a less realistic timbre overall; it sounds a little odd in the higher registers and lacking a little natural brilliance. The extra weight in the bass makes the bass sound a little too thick and with less pitch definition than the Palladian. Listen to the three note ascending bass line at 1:52 and the upward glissando at 1:59. Less distinct than on the Palladian where one can more clearly hear the individual pitches of the notes. The voice on the Palladian has a better sense of purity and refinement to my ears even if that dusky quality and extra chestiness one hears with the Glanz can be very appealing. ****
Regards.
|
Wonderful Frogman..... Thanks for that 🙏 To my ears it is MM’s that tend to have a fuller, more tonally saturated sound; what I would describe as “lush”. I have also found that the sometimes exaggerated high frequency “clarity” of some MC’s creates a better balance in my all-tube amplification chain which tends, itself, to be on the lush side. Even the best of my MM’s can be a little too lush and dark in my system without enough clarity and control in the highs. The problem for me is that while I love the midrange “neutrality” of good MM’s they tend to go a little too far in that direction; almost as if they rob timbres of some natural colors by seeming to reduce the high frequency extension needed to balance out the very full and dense midrange character. MC’s tend to put the emphasis on clarity/detail in the highs leaving the midrange to sound too lean. A very difficult balance to get right.
I had forgotten your brilliant synopsis posted previously.... Totally agree 👍 And thanks to you and yyz for the tip of Fela Kuti... Will certainly check him out.. |
|
To me it sounds like the Glanz is the more smooth and natural sounding. And the Victor sounding a little more lite up but possibly edgier and less refined. But more lively too. The shure is in between the two. I’m guess the Glanz would be the one I’d prefer. But in your room it may sound quite different than what I’m hearing? |
The Victor has my vote, my listening gear tells me it has the most refinement / clarity.
I do not hear it as edgy, or such. 😉
Michélle 🇿🇦
|
Interesting comment @justmetoo......
I hear it more like @sdrsdrsdr does, with the Glanz sounding a class above....🤗 |
After all, it does depend on ones preferences - ears, and listening gear - 🤔
💐 Michélle 🇿🇦
PS: Of late, I love more clarity - without 'ear flossing' as compared to - - 'warmth'.
"Ein jeder soll nach seiner Façon selig werden..." n'est pas? 😉
|
I agree with both. The Shure is in between so that's a pick. The Glanz is lovely and smooth with a rich musicality. I'd have to go with the Victor due to its more neutral sound. |
It's encouraging to hear these differing points of view...and I thank you all.....🤗
The comments of Michelle and @noromance are particularly gratifying because, before recording this 'Shootout', I had been happily listening to the Victor Z1/SAS and considered it one of the better MMs in my collection.
After the rather negative comments from @frogman and @dover for my Victor X1/II however......I began to doubt my judgement and feared that the Z1/SAS might project some of the same 'house' sound as its more glorified 'brother' 🥴
What a worthwhile 'shootout' this has turned out to be.....👍
Thanks again. |
Can you actually hear the differences between cantilever materials....? That's a question some have asked me. My answer.......I'm not sure 🤔 The reason I'm regularly asked this question is because I've often written that I prefer Beryllium to all other materials. This is no accident..... Over the last 42 years....but particularly the past 15....I have discovered that the majority of the 80+ cartridges (I have owned and heard in my system) that I LOVE.....seem to share Beryllium as their only common feature. On the other hand.....the cartridges that disappoint me the most, seem to share Boron as their only common feature. Aluminium cantilevers sound fine as do Sapphire and Ruby. Recently I discovered that the diamond cantilever on my Sony XL-88D sounds stunning, but there is a 'Control Group' of only one for any meaningful conclusions on this material 💍 This seems to indicate that I can certainly hear the differences in cantilever materials...... But that's not true 🤥 There's no way I can hear the differences in side-by-side A-B Tests and I've written on THAT So it seems like most things in High-End Audio.....only long-term listening can be relied on, to separate the 'wheat from the chaff' 👂 But as this Thread had regularly demonstrated....I don't have the 'Golden Ears' of other Posters and so I thought:- Why not see if ANYONE can hear what must be, exceedingly minute and subtle differences. Especially with the quality limitations of YouTube audio....? I have an original SAS/Boron Stylus for my 35 year-old Garrott P77 MM Cartridge as well as the NeoSAS/Sapphire and NeoSAS/RubyBORON CANTILEVERSAPPHIRE CANTILEVERRUBY CANTILEVERAnd for those (like Frogman) who can't get by without their daily dose of Prokofiev...... BORON CANTILEVERSAPPHIRE CANTILEVERRUBY CANTILEVER |
@halcro
So on the usual macair/airbuds
Sapphire appears initially more resolving on both pieces of music.
Ruby cantilever is awful - splashy top end and lacks definition from the midrange down. Weavers on the Ruby is unlistenable. Orchestral less so.
Now in terms of Boron vs Sapphire, what I hear is more resolution with the Sapphire cantilever, particularly in the lower treble and up. It appears to be more articulate and resolving of air.
However - the Boron has a more developed upper base and midrange - I know the Weavers album well - to my ears the voices are better resolved on the Boron, you can hear more chest, body and weight of the individual singers. The sapphire loses gravitas and resolution on vocals here in the lower range.
On the Weavers the Boron aligns more with what I hear in my system, particularly in the vocal area.
I am not familiar with the cartridges, but is the Boron SAS stylus profile a different profile from the other NeoSAS on the other 2.
From my own experience I have had the Talisman B ( Boron ) and Talisman S ( Sapphire ). The Talisman S has more resolution overall with no downsides - midrange has both weight and resolution.
PS Did you forget to feed your dog again.
|
Wow @dover ....... Simply Wow 🤯 Your ears should be left to Auckland University upon your demise 👂👂 Strangely enough, after recording the Sapphire Cantilever....I preferred it to the Ruby (which I had previously had attached) and so have left it installed. I am seriously impressed...🤩 Yes...the SAS stylus is the same profile on all three. PS Did you forget to feed your dog again. Hahaha.....Princi had just been fed so he left his 'station' in the Dining Room (waiting for dinner) to join me. Thanks for your impressions. I'm staggered that the YouTube audio quality allows you to hear these qualities. |
With some trepidation, because I so respect Dover and Halcro, I ask is it not the case that so-called "ruby" and "sapphire" cantilevers are one and the same material? That doesn't necessarily mean that a given sample of one must sound the same as a given sample of the other, because length and shape of the cantilever and stylus shape and method of bonding could dramatically affect the outcome of any comparison.
|
Dear @halcro : ""
Can you actually hear the differences between cantilever materials....? My answer.......I'm not sure 🤔 The reason I'm regularly asked this question is because I've often written that I prefer Beryllium to all other materials. This is no accident..... .I have discovered that the majority of the 80+ cartridges that I LOVE.....seem to share Beryllium as their only common feature. On the other hand.....the cartridges that disappoint me the most, seem to share Boron as their only common feature. "" Well, not only you but any audiophile with a decent room/system should be abble to listen the differences between cartridge different cantilever materials. Listen experiences of different cantilevermaterials in the same cartridge is a rare opportunity for some of us: as the Jico ruby/sapphire/boron . In other thread J.Carr was very specific answering the question : which more important the stylus shape or cantilever?. His answer was that cantilever always makes a higher difference than cartridge stylus shape. That was him. In the other side and as cantilever material beryllium is way inferior to boron or diamond in that specific job where we requires high stiffness with non-self vibrational/resonace at all..Here you can read facts that tell you that boron is superior to the beryllium: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_417.htmlberyllium elasticity modulus: 287 http://biotsavart.tripod.com/bmt.htmboron: 400. Way superior https://www.azom.com/properties.aspx?ArticleID=591beryllium hardness: 3800 in the boron link you can read: 9800. Tensile strength: beryllium: 800 boron: 3100 Halcro, this is at least the third time that I post those facts about in other threads where you participated and is a little funny that till today you just can't learned on that specific subject. What you prefer means nothing other that that is what you like it. What it count here is which is better cantilever material and facts are facts like it or not. @lewm , yes you are rigth both are same material: corundum, with different color. No one can question that Diamond and boron are the ones for cartridge cantilever as a material characteristic facts no matters what. Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
@rauliruegas
I think I remember reading that you had owned both versions of Audio Technica AT-ML180, the boron and the beryllium. OFC and OCC. Do you recall how they differed in sound?
|
Both Ruby and Sapphire are the mineral Corundum. However, they each contain different amounts of trace minerals such as chromium which account for the differences in color, from red (Ruby) to blue (Sapphire); and shades in between. They each have a different molecular formula. So, technically, they are not “the same”.
Does single crystal oxygen free copper have an inherently different sound than plain old copper? Some feel it does. Both are copper....no? Why should it?
I don’t know. Jus’ sayin..
|
I ask is it not the case that so-called "ruby" and "sapphire" cantilevers are one and the same material? I think it IS basically @lewm ..... What could possibly explain the differences here, is that the proportions of the RUBY CANTILEVER to the SAPPHIRE CANTILEVER appear to be different? |
@halcro What could possibly explain the differences here, is that the proportions of the RUBY CANTILEVER to the SAPPHIRE CANTILEVER appear to be different? The main theory for going to exotic cantilever materials is not only stiffness, to improve resolution, but also to push the resonant frequency of the cantilever/stylus assembly as high up as possible out of the "audio band", mostly to extend high frquency response. The mass also comes into play. Cantilever shape, and whether it is a tube or rod also come into play. The short cantilevered Dynavectors being an extreme example with super extended high frequency response. And of course how the stylus is connected - glued or nude. At the end of the day there is no magic bullet - the sound of a particular cartridge is just the sum of parts, materials and technologies employed and the overall design objectives of the designer. As an aside, if anyone out there has experience with the new "cactus cantilever" I am interested to know if watering it improves the sound. |
@frogman Does single crystal oxygen free copper have an inherently different sound than plain old copper? Some feel it does. Both are copper....no? Why should it?
I don’t know. Jus’ sayin..
I have spoken to some designers who believe "dirty copper" should be used on ground planes and screening of interconnects because it attracts and dissipates noise better than "pure materials". This is analagous to some tube designers who advocate the use of carbon resistors as grid stoppers, because although they are generally noisier than other types, they actually are more effective at reducing noise in high voltage power supplies. Again an example of no magic bullets, it is always about the overall design topology, criteria and context. Some other designers are now pushing very high purity silver ground cables, in other words, the opposite view. Is this marketing hype ?? Unfortunately audiophiles who proclaim a "magic component" in every situation usually are unaware of the design criteria of the component, they just assume more $$ equals better sound, not always the case. |
As I understand it, there is a "science"-based reason for using carbon composition resistors as grid-stoppers. This is because CC resistors maintain their resistivity up to very high frequencies, higher than other types of resistors that may otherwise sound better and are also non-inductive. At very high frequencies, most other resistor types reach a resonance point and become capacitative. The purpose of the grid-stop resistance is to dampen oscillations of the tube that depend upon its Miller capacitance and its transconductance. (High transconductance tubes are more prone to oscillate and more likely to require a grid-stopper to keep them quiet.) If the resistor itself becomes reactive at very high frequencies, then in theory the dampening effect is lost. That said, some good designers ignore the issue and just use resistor types that they like.
|
@lewm
Thanks for the info, I was aware of the science on this, and use them myself in this application. It was the $$$ silver grounding cables I'm less sure about. Do you have any experience with the original non magnetic shinkoh tantalum resistors in the signal path with tube preamps ? I have enough to replace the signal resistors in my Marantz 7 but have never got around to it. I use nude vishays for loading.
|
Victor nails it for me on my Macbook Pro.....more musical...less mechanical
|
Excellent observations and comments by Dover. His reactions to the three different cantilevers are almost exactly in line with mine and I rank the three in the same order. For me, the Ruby ranks a distant third, sounding rough and less refined than the other two. That one out of the way, the choice between the Boron and the Sapphire is more interesting. Plainly put, for me, the Boron sounds more natural (realistic). The sapphire, while it "appears" more resolving in the highs, I hear as more generous in that range, but a range that is not as well integrated with the midrange. For me, a top end which is more generous will often tend to cause the midrange to seem less fully developed. The better integrated highs of the Boron help its midrange to sound more "fully developed". As far as overall tonal balance goes, in the context of a different system, one might easily be preferable to the other. In this context, he Boron wins for me. Two observations that would tip the scale for me in favor of the Boron regardless of system context: Listen to the kettle drum roll that one hears at the opening of the Prokofiev (thank you, Halcro) and its percussive accent on the arrival of the roll which is accompanied by the entrance of the low brass. With the Sapphire, I hear a hint of strain in the sound of demanding (loud/densely orchestrated) passages in the music. The Boron sounds a bit more composed (sorry) in those spots. While I suspect that it does, this may or may not be related to the second observation: Listen to that great violin section beginning at :59. Wonderful musical passage with very exciting syncopated and accented notes intended to "jump out" of the overall texture of running sixteenth notes. With the Boron those accented notes leave that texture of running sixteenth notes more obviously and decisively....more music. Interesting comparison as always, Halcro. Thank you. Now, and please forgive me for this, but the subject of the Weavers’ song is a little too close to home (literally) for me to ignore. As we all know, that is a wonderful and wonderful sounding record. As wonderful sounding as is that "Guantanamera" , a beautiful song that is practically a second national anthem for Cubans, it leaves some to be desired on stylistic grounds. Here is a more stylistically authentic version; hope you enjoy it (or, at least appreciate it): https://youtu.be/gdYIpvnzoW8 |
Dear @sdrsdrsdr : Many years ago but with no doubt the boron version performed better.
Now, the 180 is very good cartridge but not the best MM out there. His ceramic body material used is way resonant but in those times manufacturers of analog items were in love with ceramic: SAEC headshells, JVC/VICTOR headshell, AT turntable mats, Audiocraft turntable mats and many more.
From there Ortofon started to use ceramic in its MC 3000 to the MC5000. Now ceramic is not only resonant but to fragile too.
R. |
Dear @frogman : You are rigth, technically are not the " same " but on cartridge cantilever job performs the same.
Btw, I had the ruby/sapphire and boron JICO with the Garrot and my first hand experiences with was like you: boron hands down the jewels.
Everything the same is almost imposible to beat boron cantilever material. Boron get together all desired characteristics to fulfill top cartridge designs, it's as this material exist becauase the needs for cantilever cartridges.
R. |
Dear @dover : """
At the end of the day there is no magic bullet - the sound of a particular cartridge is just the sum of parts, materials and technologies employed and the overall design objectives of the designer. "
Totally true, that is all about and that's why halcro does not likes the cartridges he experienced with boron cantilever but he did not like it not because the boron but because the cartridge overall design and quality level excecution to that design. Tha's all because per sé boron is a superior material in that specific application.
R. |
|
Great observations (as always) Frogman.
Thank you 😃
Your detailed descriptions allow me (of the cloth-eared).....to actually hear what you mean.
And thank you for the Link to that very interesting 'stylistic' comparison. |
Dear @frogman : Something you have to remember that the ruby/saphyre material in cartridge cantilevers are not the real gems but synthetic one so are the same material. Don't you think?.
R. |
Dear @dover : "
The short cantilevered Dynavectors being an extreme example with super extended high frequency response. "
Well that wie band frequency is not exactly because the short cantilever.
I think that the advantage of that short cantilever in Dynavector cartridges is that exist or is reduced at minimum the additional self developed cantilever vibrations/resonances and this helps a lot for better quality level performance of what we are listen it through in our systems.
R. |
@dover : Those 1.3/1.7 Dyna cantilevers has another characteristic that is near the cantilever-less cartridge designs and it's : quickness perception on the MUSIC we are listen to because the transients has that quickness " sensation/feeling ".
Even that I don't like any more the Dyna short cantilever cartridges but the other ones but this is because what you posted: overall design characteristics.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
Dear friends @halcro : As with ruby/saphyre diamond is synthetic too and more a hype than a true reality that cartridge with diamond cantilevers performs best, it's only marketing.
The manufacturers of diamond cantilever cartridges put very special attention/care on each one an all parameters, measures and voicing with their diamond cantilever models to the cartridges can achieve a different ( but not really better ) sound quality than the same models with boron cantilevers but if those same designers put the same grade of care, tigth tolerances, voicing, etc, etc with the boron ones these boron cantilever cartridge will outperforms the diamond one.
For me and till today boron in that specific job is unbeatable.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R. |
|
These guys are great. 5 string bass. |
...and fretless; for that distinctive singing sound. Great player, Victor Wooten. Some bass! 👍 |
