Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Wonderful insights once again Frogman....🤗
At the end of this exercise, I think I'll ask YOU to rate my cartridges for me......✊
Interesting also to compare your thoughts with those of Noromance....
Audio is a very personal experience and that's probably why I don't know any two audiophiles with identical systems...👅

The Victor X1-IIE is the same as Chakster's X1-II except his has a Microline stylus instead of the Elliptical on my one.

MIT vs Victor X1-IIE

Again, difficult to tell how much of what is heard is a result of the way the music is recorded for uploading to YouTube, but certain patterns emerge. The piano on this recording is heard from a more realistic perspective than the previous piano recording with some distance between the instrument and the mics which allows some room sound to be heard.  In this comparison, for me, the Victor wins hands down. 

MIT:

While I like the immediacy and speed, I just don’t like what this cartridge does to the sound of the right hand of the piano.  The same thinness and clangy quality that I heard on the previous recording is here again.  Beginning around 1:30, with the accented right hand chords, the sound of the instrument takes on a very unnatural metallic and thin quality.  Again, how much of this is the result of the upload or the less that sophisticated recording method is hard to say, but this is what is heard.

Victor:

Better balanced and more natural piano sound.  Much less, almost none of the metallic and clangy quality in the right hand heard with the MIT.  Unlike the Garrott in the previous comparison, it doesn’t sound as if the high frequencies and harmonics are tamped down, but simply closer to correct.  As a result the midrange doesn’t sound too thick and lacking brilliance as with the Garrott.  

Any advantage that the MIT may seem to have in the dynamic aliveness department is probably a result of its more brilliant character.  I would say that both are about equal in this department; surprising to me given that the Victor is a MM.  A bit of a leap considering that they have been heard with different recordings, but this may be my favorite Victor so far.  Is this X1- IIE the same cartridge that chakster referred to early on as simply the X1-II?  If so, I understand why he prefers it to the X1.

halcro, very funny; certainly no derision intended 🤨 And, noromance, no apology ever necessary as far as I am concerned. Sometimes the best observations are gut reactions not encumbered by a lot of “facts” and the inevitable bias. I will comment on the MIT/Victor later today.

Henry, I thought so as your approach is usually scientific. Thanks for confirmation. Actually I feel sorry for the Raven as it now can´t give the best out of LOMCs : /

Schubert, great question; and the answer to which highlights one of the main problems with the way orchestral music is often recorded. Most good composers of orchestral music are (and were) very mindful of the fact that the sound of an instrument, or instruments playing together, needs to travel a certain distance on its way to the listener’s ear in order to “develop” acoustically and achieve the desired timbre and texture. Sitting in the middle of an orchestra one hears a good amount of extraneous “noise” in one’s own and other players’ sounds which is not, nor intended to be, desirable. This noise can be excessive air in a wind player’s tone or exaggerated sound of the tongue “attack” of the note. Even in the absence of this noise, the timbre of most instruments is typically more brilliant and aggressive with more prominent, and uneven (unnatural) harmonic content when heard up close. Some players’ tones are much more beautiful heard from a certain distance.

Sitting mid hall, besides more fully developed individual tones, what one hears is the result of what (good) players sometimes refer to as “playing inside each other’s sound”. For instance, when the principal flute and principal oboe have a melody to play in unison, or when the tympani has repeated accented notes with the basses, what the composer usually intends, and what the players aim for, is not for the listener to hear two individual and distinct sounds. The compositional and performance goal is the color of a perfect blend between the two which is essentially a new color in the orchestral color palette. A performance that was recorded too close up does not capture this very important aspect of a composition and performance. Sitting in the middle of an orchestra players are (or, should be) very conscious of all this and play in a way that honors the composer’s goal in this respect. Some players’ tones are much more beautiful heard from a certain distance. Some of this is a bit of a mystery and goes to a musician’s strength of musical “intent”. Some players have the ability to “project” and sound very beautiful heard from a distance even if their sound may seem smaller than another player’s whose sound seems louder or more present when heard up close. Sitting in the middle of an orchestra a good player has to be mindful of all this in order to best serve the music.

Hearing music from inside an orchestra also makes one very aware and sensitive to very fine dynamic gradations in the music. Many of the things that I tried to describe above apply to the area of dynamics. Most listeners tend to focus on tonal issues and distortions in reproduced sound while distortions of dynamic nuance is just as prevalent and important; arguably, even more so since this is what mostly gives music its sense of aliveness. Perhaps a result of personal bias, but I find that distortion of dynamic nuance is the area in audio most in need of attention and improvement.

Re Falletta:

Fine conductor. I had the pleasure of playing under her with Philadelphia Orchestra on two occasions and most recently in a performance of new works by students at Princeton U’s Cone Institute. She is excellent and has the ability to command the respect of the players while not losing sight of the fact that the process is a collaboration to a great extent; something that does not always happen.

Hi Harold,
All Amplification operating in ‘Balanced’ mode and all cartridges operating in ‘Balanced’ mode with XLRs except for LOMCs when played on the Raven AC-2 as they go through the Kondo KSL SUT which has only RCAs in and out.
LOMCs from the TT-101 go straight through the Halcro DM-10 with XLRs in fully balanced differential mode.

Henry, one question just to confirm the situation: are you listening all the cartridges on balanced mode trough XLR inputs ? I´d assume your great system is fully balanced from cartridge pins to power amps ?

Frogman , I wonder if you ever played under JoAnn Falletta ?
Performance Today out of St. Paul plays her all the time , her tight control
over the Buffalo Phil  and what she had done  there is amazing to me !

frog , what do you think is the result of hearing more music in the orchestra
than in middle hall ?

Schubert, I completely understand what you are saying and I have been more than intrigued by the prospect of getting a good DD for many years. Good DD’s, like halcros, always sound good to me in that department.  I made a “commitment” to my tricked out VPI TNT VI several years ago in great part because it is such a good platform for what I think is one of the very best arms out there, my (also tricked out) ET2.  Especially after going to string drive instead of rubber belt, the table can sound pretty darn good and, overall, on the same level as SOME dd’s that I have heard.  Of course, no substitute for a proper arm and for living with a turntable so as to be able to make the adjustments that will get the sound closer to our own individual idea of what correct is.  The ET2 is amazing in that regard.  “Complicating” matters is the fact that I have had a beautiful Forsell Air Force One sitting in boxes, untouched  since buying it a few years ago very insexpensively from a friend.  More pumps!  Yay! ☹️  I couldn’t justify buying a good DD without first experiencing the Forsell.  There are only so many hours in the day.  So until there are.... 

Golly. That is interesting. Apologies for my musical ignorance compared to @frogman . Again this is just through my phone speaker.

MM - very easy to follow the basic melody of the piece. Clean sounding. Maybe even more dynamic. But that could be because fine detail is missing which may be swamping the system. 

MC - initially sounded more cluttered by lots of additional information. Sustains and harmonics were elaborate. As the piece progressed, I could hear the colors of the instrument. Different timbres made it come alive. There was a fuller, richer bass. I much preferred this. I did think there was some over-saturation at times on some chords which didn’t sound right but I’ve no reference point.

PS. Your speakers seem too close to the turntables and right wall. Too far apart? The sofa in the middle and glass table are objects I would remove. 

frogman because a good DD has the drive needed for Brahms 1 or Mahler 8, better to be ahead on leading edge than behind . We’re talking micro here , but you know how important that is .

The best cart I have found lately is anything Soundsmith sells .Their 400$  Otello is clear and resolved,  good on low levels . Re-tip ones are $299 on Music Direct .

Cut to the quick by Frogman's scorn and derision at my last demonstration using recorded 'piano'.....I hurriedly rummaged through my collection for one which might gain his approval....🙏🏽

Keeping the JMAS-MIT 1 as a 'control'.....I substituted a vintage Victor X1-IIE for the MM comparison.

JMAS MIT-1 LOMC Cartridge
Mounted on SAEC WE8000/ST Tonearm on bronze Armpod surrounding vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.

VICTOR X1-IIE MM Cartridge
Mounted on DV-507/II Tonearm on bronze Armpod surrounding vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

Please be kind....

Thank you again Frogman....
A fascinating dissection (which is why I love to read your comments) full of details that again seem to escape my attention 🤯

I must admit that I agree with you and Noromance that the MIT-1 is the clear winner here...
Being able to hear these performance side by side at the press of a button is quite different to listening 'live' where the time-delay in changing arms and/or cartridges reveals the shakiness of our aural memory....👂

I must admit disappointment in your comments about the 'poor recording' because I actually always thought it excellent with believable realism, nuance, heft and clarity.
With your musician's trained acumen, your verdict has left me desolate....😩

Some thoughts re your excellent most recent post, halcro:

Great descriptions of the difficulties with piano reproduction. I completely agree. With one exception, the often stated idea that it is “the most difficult to reproduce”. I don’t like it because it is way too simplistic. It’s a bit like the often stated: “the oboe is the most difficult instrument to play”. All instruments are, overall, equally difficult to play in their own unique ways; just as all instruments place unique demands on the record/playback process. Speaking of the oboe; incredibly difficult to capture/playback a believable oboe sound with its very rich and complex harmonic content. Moreover, while all pianists do produce a somewhat individual tone on a piano, there is much more variability in the tones that individual oboists produce relative to what is possible on the piano which has a tone which is “built in” to a great (not total) extent. This makes the oboe particularly difficult to record and reproduce realistically. The cartridges:

There’s a lot going on with this comparison. Two things that are significant (to me) for my comments to have context: First, the cartridges are on two different arms. Second, I don’t feel that the piano is very well recorded on that recording. The piano is miked way too close up; especially the right hand. It makes the upper half of the keyboard have a clangy quality; nasal and metallic. Not nearly enough wood in the sound of the instrument. Makes it sound like an upright piano (not a good one), not a concert grand. I believe it’s the way it was recorded because this quality is heard with both cartridges to different degrees. Of course, the limitations of the recording equipment and YouTube plays into this, but the comparison is telling.

The MIT highlights the upper frequencies and the clangyness of the piano’s right hand is completely exposed. The two halves of the keyboard almost sound like two different instruments.

The Garrott does not have as much clarity in that range, so the clanginess is reduced to give the illusion of better balance and “neutrality” The problem then is that the left hand sounds too thick because the upper harmonics produced by those lower notes don’t have enough clarity due to the reduced harmonic content.  Overall, the Garrott’s piano sound is too thick without enough definition and “leading edge” (I hate cliches). The MIT’s clarity in the highs let’s it give the lower register definition, but higher frequency sounds are not well integrated.

Then there is once again the issue of dynamic aliveness. The MIT is superior in this regard to the Garrott. I realize that tonal balance impacts our perception of dynamics. Nonetheless, putting aside the issue of tone, what I hear is that the MIT lets me hear more of what the player is doing musically. The little pushes and accents, the subtle rhythmic give and take are more clearly heard with the MIT. Listen to the two tremolos that he plays beginning @ 0:57. With the MIT one hears that not only does he play a tremolo, but he makes a subtle crescendo (gets louder) during each one; especially during the second one, There are countless little dynamic details of that nature in the performance that I feel are better expressed by the MIT. It also reveals the bad. It better shows how the player’s Gospel music rhythmic feel is pretty square.

Bottom line for me is this. I think it points, more than anything, to the simple fact that even the best equipment has a long way to go to be truly “neutral”; to make a sound that sounds close to real. What I hear is that TONALLY both cartridges deviate from what I think the real thing sounds like to about the same degree; but in different ways. The Garrot is overly covered in the highs and thick in the midrange. The MIT sounds as if it highlights the upper ranges with a relentless clarity and ends sounding too lean. However, to my ears the MIT lets significantly more musical nuance through. If I had to choose, the MIT wins.

My two cents and thanks for the latest round.

From my phone. Prefer the JMAS.
Why? At 1:15-1:30, there is a simple melody that is easily followed on the MIT1. On the P77, it falls apart.
The MC has more detail and longer sustains.
However, the MM has a somewhat cleaner, more neutral sound. There is some steeliness to the sound.

OK...time for some piano 🎹🎼
Most audiophiles seem to agree that realistic piano reproduction is the most difficult thing to achieve via domestic hifi systems.
The complexity of the piano in being a stringed and percussion instrument at the same time means the 'touch' on the keyboard, the attack of the fingers, the tone of the soundboard and the sustain and decay of the notes via the pedals are just as important as the softness 'piano' and loudness 'forte' the player injects into the performance.
To achieve a realistic facsimile of the 'power' of the Concert Grand....I have found two 'aids' which are beneficial:-

• Two good subwoofers
• A very good DD turntable

The subwoofers allow the 'foundation' of the piano's bass reproduction to resonate throughout the performance whilst at the same time, relieving the main amplifiers output to be concentrated at the sheer dynamic range of transients and harmonics inherent in this instrument.

Perfect timing (ie speed control/consistency) is essential in once again projecting the speed and instantaneous dynamic swings of loudness and softness produced by this wondrous instrument.
Many folks laugh at the notion of 'stylus drag' in a turntable (particularly those belt-drive tables of massive weight and solidity) but those who have a Sutherland Laser Timeline can attest to the fact that it surely exists.
A great DD table is the 'easy' way to eliminate 'stylus drag' which is most audible on piano reproduction (see Timeline Test).

Here are two of my favourite cartridges.....
One a LOMC and the other a MM.
An unexpected discovery in my listening experiences has been the JMAS MIT 1 LOMC Cartridge which was a slightly modified Coral mc81 from the late '80s with the first true VdH diamond fitted on beryllium cantilever available in the States.
The Garrott P77 is a legendary MM made by John and Brian Garrott in Australia, based on the A&R P77 from England.
I bought three of these cartridges directly from the Garrott Bros in the '80s (before their tragic suicide pact with their wives) but when I transplanted a Jico SAS,NeoSAS(S) and NeoSAS(R)....I hear the real brilliance of this classic MM cartridge.

JMAS MIT 1 LOMC Cartridge
Mounted on SAEC WE8000/ST Tonearm on bronze Armpod surrounding vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.

GARROTT P77/SAS MM Cartridge
Mounted on DV-507/II Tonearm on bronze Armpod surrounding vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

Re the Grassphoper: note that I stipulated that the MCs that I felt had the most convincing dynamic aliveness were not necessarily my favorites.

I think that you are exactly right when you surmise that with tube amplification one might “like” one cartridge over another compared to ss amplification. I love tubes. For me, for the mostly acoustic music (Classical and Jazz) that I listen to tubes generally do a better job of capturing tonal realism and dynamic nuance. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I feel the same way about tube amplification’s way with dynamic aliveness compared to ss as I do about MC’s compared to MM’s. Generally speaking, when I listen to good tube amplification I hear less deviation overall from the sound of live acoustic music than I do with ss.

I am curious about Schubert’s comment about dd tables. I don’t necessarily disagree, but wondered what about the topics discussed inspired the comment.

Btw, I think we may be shortchanging the importance of the arm used in these comparisons.  I realize that there is no other way, but worth remembering.  

You need a good DD table-LOL

👍

I think noromance’s description of MM/MC’s was in reference to the three cartridges in question only and not a generalization.

 
Of course it was.....😎 I have to 'proof-read' more thoroughly. What I have in my 'mind' often doesn't translate into the correct words.

I like your 'generalised' descriptions of the 'sounds' of MCs and MMs and my favourite LOMCs tend to 'buck' this generalised trait.
I had the VdH Grasshopper and found it far too shrill and aggressive in my system.....perhaps exaccerbated by mounting it in the low-mass Unipivot Haycock GH-228 😱
The revelation of your system's 'all-tube amplification' puts into perspective your 'likes' and comments as does the all SS amplification of my system 👅
I'd be interested in whether or not you can detect the SS nature of my amplification from the Youtube video sounds?

Oh yes...I have the Acutex LPM420-STR as well as the Acutex LPM 310,312,315 and you'll certainly hear the 420-STR soon.
You'll also hear the Shure V15 Type III with original stylus and also with the Jico SAS.
The Empire 4000D/III Gold, London Decca Reference and Denon DL-103R I also have as well as some other interesting MMs and LOMCs which you may not have heard.

I'll keep the 'sounds' coming as long as the 'feedback' shows interest....🤗

You need a good DD table-LOL

Just for the sake of perspective. The MM’s that I have owned and spent any significant time with and that I can remember (the ones with *, I still own):

Various Shure including the V’s
Empire 4000DIII Gold*
Azden 50VL*
Acutex 420STR*
Acutex 415*
Acutex 412
Sumiko “Andante”*
Pickering XSV3000
Stanton 880S
AT ML170OCC*

MI:
Every upper end pre-wood body Grado.

IM:
Various ADC including XLM and ZLM

Decca London*

MC:

VDH MC1*
VDH Frog 😊
VDH Grasshopper*
Spectral
Every Monster Cable including the AG2000*
Carnegie
Benz Ruby3
Koetsu Black
Koetsu Rosewood Sig.
Koetsu Pro IV
Denon 103D
Shelter 901
Sumiko

And others including Ortofon and Sumiko that I can’t recall:

Most have been mounted on the ET2 which I have used for well over twenty years. On this arm, the MM cartridges which, for me, have had the most convincing sense of dynamic aliveness have been the Acutex 420 and Azden. The best MC’s in this regard, not necessarily my overall favorites, have been the VDH’s and Spectral. The very best was, no surprise, the Decca; but a total PITA.

I used a 420 for several years WAY back in the day because it did what needing doing with classical music .I worked part time for a guy that was turning 20 million $ in audio in the 70’s , about 100 million $ today .
We sold every brand of MM, save Grado, and a few MC’s , notably Dynavector , there was and I tried them all .Only thing I liked better was the Empire ED R9(?) in any event the best Empire made .Used either big Sansui integrated or Dynaco 400 with AR- LST or AR-9 .(and about 10 other speakers ) .
We bought Acutex by the hundreds , I got couple 420’s from their rep for free.As I recall , we paid 25-30 bucks for them but don’t quote me .I like MM better. Listening to , say, a Brahms symphony I’ve found can you feel the drive and energy coiling up in your mind and muscles from an MM if everything in your system is in synergy .As as we all know that is very difficult and very expensive .

It is interesting indeed, halcro. I agree with you in your strong preference for the sound of analog vs digital.  You seem to be particularly sensitive to high frequency aberrations and why you react so strongly to the sound of digital and perhaps why you prefer the sound of a good MM.  I hear consistently less high frequency detail and sense of limitless extension with most MM’s compared to MC’s which often go too far in the other direction such as with the SPU Silver.  I think noromance’s description of MM/MC’s was in reference to the three cartridges in question only and not a generalization.  I would never describe MC’s as a group to be more “lush” than MM’s; quite the opposite.  

To me 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.  Not that MM’s don’t do it well; matter of degeee.  I commented on the ET2 thread a while ago on a MM that I felt was the best MM that I have owned in regard to dynamics as described above.  The Acutex M420 STR.  Do you happen to have this cartridge?  Would love to hear it up against some of your faves.

Thanks! 

Interesting Frogman....
I again agree with you in your descriptions of the two SPUs but your summary of the Signet is a little surprising....🤔 as the metal sleigh bells at the beginning sound just as shimmery and 'ringing' in realtime in my room....as they do on the MCs.
This is something I always listen for when I play any cartridge on this track....
Your comments on the 'cowbell' are insightful as that has always escaped my attention.
That is why this exercise is so valuable for me and your way of 'listening' is so enlightening.

Unlike you....I cannot hear the 'dynamics' of MCs as being distinctly different to that of MMs or MIs so that probably explains my general preference for really good MM cartridges.
Our ears all hear differently (even if it's only slightly).......with all the improvements in digital playback during the last ten years, I still can't comfortably listen to it for an extended period whereas many audiophiles can and some even prefer it to analogue 😱

MC is lush, sweet, detailed, and colored.
MM is clear, neutral, spacious, easy to follow.

I tend to agree with Noromance as a generalisation.....although the SPU Silver Meister is definitely less coloured than the AE-Gold 😃
But the luscious tone of the old SPU is just soooo seductive......

Where does one find an SAS stylus for the Victor Z-1 ?

Good question......
It used to be easy....just go to the Jico Website, look up the cartridge you're interested in (Victor Z1) and see all the Jico replacement styli available for it.
One of them would be a SAS....the most expensive!!
The SAS was a radically profiled diamond (some say similar to the AT ML Microline) glued to a solid boron cantilever.
A few years ago, when boron became scarce.....Jico changed to sapphire cantilever and ruby cantilever and call them Neo-SAS(S) and Neo-SAS(R).
Since about Feb 2018 the Neo-SAS has not been available.
One rumour is that the elderly Master Japanese Craftsman who was the only one able to assemble the SAS styli has retired and Jico can thus no longer supply them 🧐.

This is tragic for the analogue community IMO and we all hope that Jico can solve their problems and return to supplying the SAS Styli once again.
Meanwhile there is an 'extortionist' market on Ebay where SAS styli are being offered at higher prices that Jico sold them when NEW.....🤯

Sorry for the delay.  Some thoughts on the latest trio of cartridges.  This time I listened on my Stax Lambda Signatures with SRM-T1S tube amp fed by my iPhone.  

I should preface my comments by pointing out that while I like and use MM’s a lot, I am not in the camp that feels that they are inherently superior to MC’s; or viceversa.  I have used enough examples of both persuasions to feel that neither type, as a whole, is superior to the other in the ways that matter to me.  I know some will disagree, but I feel that there are certain sonic qualities that are shared by all of either type; and each type generally has certain specific strengths relative to the other.  In my experience MM’s excel in the area of timbre and tonality and MC’s excell with dynamics.  By dynamics I mean the feeling that the music is alive and the musical interaction among the musicians is realistic.  In a nutshell, that summarizes for me what I heard as the differences between the two Ortofons and the Signet.  I get seduced by the full, saturated and realistic tone of a good MM, but end up missing the immediacy and rhyhtmic definition of a good MC.  That has been my experience with the gear that I have owned over many years.  Other details:

SPU Gold:

Beautiful and rich midrange tone.  Sweet.  Seems to be weighted toward the lower mids.  Good feeling of immediacy and clarity.

SPU Silver:

Noticeably brighter sound with even more “clarity” in the mids and highs.  Sounds like it probably does a better job than the Gold of fillling and enveloping the room.  But there is a glare throughout that range that is annoying.  Seems to play slightly louder.  Again, great feeling of immediacy.  

Signet:

Darker, fuller and thicker tone as well as thicker sense of rhythm; not as lithe.  A little more clarity up top would probably be a good thing.  There is less of the sound of metal from the sleigh bells one hears throughout the beginning of the tune compared to the SPUs.  Great realism in the sounds of midrange instruments, but the music doesn’t flow with quite as much natural flow as with the SPU’s.  At times the music almost sounds like it is being performed a tiny bit slower.

There is a cowbell that enters @1:57 - 1:59 (depending on which clip) and plays on every beat.  It’s way in the background, but can be heard.  With the SPU’s one can actually hear or sense the feeling of forward drive that a player can coax out of the lowly cowbell.  On the Signet track the cowbell sounds like the player stuck a towel in it.  It sounds muffled with less definition on the beat and this diminishes the sense of forward drive in the rhythm of the tune.  

They each have strengths and I’m sure all three sound great on Halcro’s system.

Where does one find an SAS stylus for the Victor Z-1 ?

Haha. No one is going to hear a difference in those smartphone mic videos with the room echo going on.

Soon, I promise.  It’s been a little busy.  Probably tomorrow.

Just returned from a short trip expecting to read Frogman's promised impressions of the SPUs and Signet......
Where are they....??!!
Frogman......where are you?
I need your spot-on analysis to show me what to listen for......🎶😎

Regards

The truth is that a great table and arm will make inexpensive cartridges sing.

👍

LOL. 
Keep 'em coming. Love hearing these.
The truth is that a great table and arm will make inexpensive cartridges sing. 

I listened to the track on Tidal and the tweets are NOT there. I think it's his phone!

Bingo Noromance.......
It IS the phone...😛👍

Sorry I couldn't organise it to ring at the same place with the other cartridges Frogman.....🤗

Regards
Henry

Hysterical!  Talk about coincidences! Halcro has a very musical phone; in tune and with good rhythm 😊. Thanks for clarifying, it was seeming more and more implausible.  

I listened to the track on Tidal and the tweets are NOT there. I think it's his phone!

Very mystified that those “tweets” should be so obvious with the Gold (they are not that far back in the mix) and totally absent with the other cartridges.  It’s so glaring that I thought: is it possible that they are extraneous sounds in Halcro’s room and not in the recording?  Is Halcro messing with us? 😉 His “test”?  Unless it is the result of the unlikely coincidence that, as is the case, the pitches of those “tweets” both fit the harmony of the tune and are rhythmically accurate to the rhythm of the tune, I’ll stick with my original comment that the Gold reveals them and the others do not.  

Also after two quick listens. More to follow when I have more time (Aaargh! Some might be saying 😊). First impression: SPU Gold wins hands down. Why?

Gorgeous and very seductive sound. I agree with noromance, very sweet. At first the Silver gives the impression of more HF detail, but check this out:

On the Gold “track”, one hears, three times, at precisely 1:06, 1:08 and 1:11, from a keyboard (synthesizer), a right hand “tweet, tweet”. It’s very clearly heard on the Gold. Where are the “tweet, tweets” on the Silver or Signet? Completely gone. Fascinating. More to follow.

From a quick listen on phone speaker.
MC is lush, sweet, detailed, and colored.
MM is clear, neutral, spacious, easy to follow.

Time to hear the belt-drive Raven AC-2.....
A classic vintage Ortofon SPU AE Gold with elliptical stylus (sorry Chakster) against the current SPU Silver Meister compared to a vintage Signet TK-7LCa MM cartridge with nude square shank Line Contact Stylus on Beryllium cantilever.

ORTOFON SPU AE GOLD
A taste of the delicious, renowned SPU legendary sound.

ORTOFON SPU SILVER MEISTER
Current production model among the many SPUs available today.

SIGNET TK-7LCa
35 year-old TOTL MM from Signet, a USA specialty off-shoot from Audio Technica.

Thank you for the very interesting thread, Henry.  Obviously, it’s not necessary, nor desirable, to always wear one’s “analytical” hat and instead just enjoy the musical ride.  Regards.  

I just listened again Frogman.......
And I heard all the things you pointed out...🎶
I must admit that I don't really listen normally, from such an analytical perspective....but it's so obvious when you are 'briefed'....
Your descriptions are so much more insightful than the Reviewers' favourites:-

• Attack
  
• Sustain
  
• Micro Dynamics
  
• Macro Dynamics
  

Which frankly are totally meaningless to me....🧐

Thanks again...

Fascinating Frogman........
You're obviously a musician and your insights are eye-openers for me 👁
I really appreciate your time in giving me this kind of 'feedback' 👍

I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the other cartridges yet to come....

Yes...there are sometimes reasons I have to use different arms.
And then again....you'll hear my other (belt-drive) turntable with altogether different arms entirely....😛

Regards
Henry

I just noticed that the two cartridges are each playing in different arms.  Obviously doesn’t change what I heard, but.......

Halcro, I listened again a few times. Acknowledging the limitations of listening to music this way, the Palladian still sounds more extended at both ends to me. I get more of a feeling of air up top even if the Victor has that very seductive clarity in the midrange (particularly vocals) that perhaps makes it sound “brighter”. The initial impression given by the Victor is of more bass, but the Palladian sounds to me like it goes lower and is tighter with better pitch definition. The Victor sounds tubby in the mid bass range and I wonder if that obscures some bass extension. But I still don’t get as much of that deep foundation that I hear hints of with the Palladian. Re “emotion”:

For me the emotional component is expressed primarily in the area of dynamics just as it is in live music. I find that some listeners associate tonal warmth with emotion and I do acknowledge that tonal naturalness plays an important role; but, ultimately, expressive nuance is mostly about (micro) dynamics. Example:

The tune “Willow” starts with the drummer (on brushes) playing a four sixteenth note lead-in into the bass player’s downbeat, who then plays the bass line mentioned previously. The drummer doesn’t just play four “notes” into the downbeat, he plays each one progressively louder and with a sense of urgency, of going somewhere...the downbeat. To my ears, with the Palladian that dynamic crescendo by the drummer is more obvious, impactful and with more musical intent. By comparison, with the Victor it all sounds a little polite and when the bass enters the tubbiness dulls the impact of the arrival of both drummer and bass on the downbeat and the following bass line also sounds a little bloated in comparison. Same thing happens when the guitar enters in the fourth measure. I find that the Victor’s tubbiness dulls the musical impact of the guitar’s entrance which signals the entrance of the vocal and should sound more dramatic as with the Palladian. Likewise, the sound of the slapped bass which follows is rounder and not as incisive. All things that determine musical impact (emotion). Of course this is all a matter of degree and by comparison, and in no way am I suggesting that I think the Victor is not good in those areas. Of course, then you have that beautiful Victor midrange naturalness; and that beautiful midrange definitely adds to the vocal’s expressive quality.  There really is something special about these cartridges and I hope to find one.

Thank you for the posts.

Btw, what is that single very high frequency ring, like a very high pitched triangle, that one hears at :07 and again at :22, but only on the Palladian version?

@chakster 

as I read in all posts you do not miss anything really eh?  LOL

Interesting insights once again Frogman....
I'm a little surprised by your thoughts on the Victor's 'lacking' in the frequency extremes as this is not noticeable to me in reality....?

For me.....this Joan Armatrading track shows a cartridge's ability (or not) to convey the 'emotion' buried in the vinyl.
Does the YouTube reproduction allow you to comment on that aspect?

Regards

I posted about the Victor Z-1 in my first month at Audiokarma(look at the date in the post #8):

That's a while ago Theophile......
I hope you still have that Victor Z1 cartridge as you won't believe how it sounds with a SAS stylus?

There are many more vintage MMs from my collection that you will hear on this Thread.
You apparently have the same desire for the 'realism' of MMs over MCs that a lot of us also share 🤗

Regards