Hear my Cartridges....🎶

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.....🤯

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......

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! 

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 .

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.

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

👍

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.  

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

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.

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.

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....😩

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....

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 .

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. 

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.... 

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

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 !

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 ?

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.

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.

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 : /

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.

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.

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.

'Love Letters' by Ketty Lester recorded in 1961 is from the 1945 movie of the same name.
If you have the Ketty Lester version....forget all the others 😎

Many audiophiles have heard the reverential tones used to describe the London Decca Reference Cartridge by those few who have heard or owned this 'exotica'.
My example was obtained from a dear audiophile friend in Argentina who is currently building his dream 'Listening Room'.
No. 84 is a good one.....

The vintage Fidelity Research FR-7 Series of LOMC cartridges has acquired 'Legendary' status over the past 20 years with good reason.
My FR-7f together with the FR-7fz are generally rated as the best of the genus. 

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI CARTRIDGE
Mounted in vintage FR-66S Tonearm on TW Acustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable.
Loaded at the peculiar 15K Ohms with 430pF capacitance, the FR-66S is the best match of all my arms for this unique gem.

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7f LOMC CARTRIDGE
Mounted in vintage FR-66S Tonearm on TW Acustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable.

Decca - Clean, open, uncolored, unveiled, musical, emotional. Ketty is in the room.
FR - Nice (damned already!), musical in a warm and slightly irritating way, veiled by comparison, bass seems deeper but not quite as clear.

I listened to the MIT/Victor again - this time on PC/headphones. The MIT didn’t sound as good as this time - therefore aligning me more towards the Victor - with the caveat that there was more detail in the MIT.
You sure the Decca works well at 15k? Some say 33k, or 47k. But what about 1meg? You may be surprised.

Thanks for writing my impressions for me, noromance 😃 .  Great description and I agree word for word.  Loved the Decca; but then I have always liked Deccas.

A bit of possible descriptive excess:

The clarity in the bass let’s one hear the pitches of notes better than with the FR.  Beautiful vocal quality with the Decca.  The FR has a little bit of a “hands cupped around the mouth” quality.

Great example of its emotional quality are the sustained vocal notes at the end of each phrase.  Examples: the words “heart”, “apart”, “sigh”.  Ketty sustains that last word of the phrase, but also maintains or slightly increases the vocal intensity for a nice dynamic “push” through the sustained word all the way to the arrival on the sibilant “t”.  That little dynamic push is more obvious with the Decca.  The reduced clarity of the FR at times makes the sibilant “t” seem almost detached and separate from the word itself.  

Ha! Thanks for the smile, frogman.
I have the mono original of Love Letters. Now, I'll have to dig it out and see how it sounds on my Decca SG/P.

You sure the Decca works well at 15k? Some say 33k, or 47k. But what about 1meg? You may be surprised.

With the Halcro DM-10 PhonoStage, I have infinitely adjustable Loading from 15K Ohms to 60K Ohms and infinitely adjustable Capacitance from 0pF to 430pF so I've tried just about every combination for the LDR.

Sometimes I'm happy to listen at 47K Ohms with zero Capacitance but when I really balance the response against my trusty 50 year-old Rita Coolidge album 'Good Old Days'.....I think the 15K/430pF sounds quite well in my system 🤗

This is for Frogman......
Telemann Oboe Concerto in F Minor.
Hope original Baroque Oboe is acceptable....?

The Acutex LPM420-STR MM Cartridge was able to be picked up 'for a song' NOS only 5 years ago.
Loaded at 47K Ohms with about 300pF capacitance, it's a worthy performer.
The Grace F9E MM Cartridge is a perennial vintage favourite among many audiophiles (particularly in its 'Ruby' cantilever version).
This one is the 'normal' cantilever and sounds its best in my system when loaded at 30K Ohms with about 90pF.

ACUTEX LPM420-STR MM CARTRIDGE
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.

GRACE F9E MM CARTRIDGE
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.

Thank you, halcro.  Fascinating comparison. I have never owned a Grace cartridge, but am well aware of their reputation.  A few years ago I posted several comments on the ET2 thread about my experiences with this Acutex.  I found it to have some very interesting traits including excellent dynamic nuance and some of the best controlled and tuneful bass that I had ever gotten from my ET2.  

The Acutex is not a “beautiful” sounding cartridge.  Switching to the Grace is almost shocking, first impression is of a much more refined sound.  With the Grace every individual instrument’s tone up to the upper midrange is more “beautiful”.  The perspective is more closeup and the Acutex more distant.  The overall sound is larger and much juicer compared to the Acutex’s much drier sound.  

However, the Grace can sound a little thin and forward from the upper mids on up.  The harpsichord seems to get thrown forward at times in a way that seems unnatural.  The Acutex keeps the harpsichord in better perspective relative to the other instruments.  It has a way of separating musical lines in a way that allows the listener to better understand the composition.  While the overall sound may seem too dry and colorless (music has color), I find that after one adjusts to its “sound” it is apparent that it does a better job of creating the illusion of instruments playing in a real space even if the space itself is not particularly attractive sounding; a dry, non-reverberant space.  The sound with the Grace always reminds me that it is a recorded sound; a sound recorded in a larger more  reverberant space.  

If I’m looking for the ear candy aspect of listening the Grace wins.  If I wan to listen to the music without my audiophile hat on the Acutex wins.

Ah, Frogman now I get it: you use a linear tracker : ) Excellent. 
As for the reference and a reminder, really ; ) for the carts in question, I sold my ACUTEX M320 STR III (short nose, their finest according to some experts) but still have both Grace F-14, Ruby and Boron/ML, both for reasonable prices and only 10 - 100 hours use (grin) thanks to great Victor the Dealer here on A´gon (probably a Russian).

So I would like to hear Grace´s flagship (well, one of them at least) evaluated here someday please ...
What an interesting thread this is... keep them coming .....

Thank you Harold....
I didn't know how this Thread would be received as I didn't know whether the subtleties of different cartridges.......and we are talking MINUTE subtleties in many instances.......would be able to be discerned via the YouTube sound capabilities? 🤔
To say I'm astounded by Frogman's ability to hear artefacts and nuances that I was never 'consciously' aware of sitting in front of 'The Real Thing'....simply blows my mind 🤯

I have played records for several musicians but none has had the ability to separate the 'performance' from the attempted recreation of the 'musical fidelity'.

I have never heard audio equipment designers speak in the same terms as Frogman....
Current manufacturers  seem to have different 'approaches' to WHAT they are trying to accomplish in their designs and HOW they attempt to achieve them.

All Audio Designers would do well I believe.........to carefully read Frogman's comments in this Thread and 'reflect'.....
Only 'good' can come of listening well and taking note 🎼 

EVERY Acutex cart sounded good , even the ones who cost 10 bucks a pop if dealer bought a hundred at a time in the 70’s !
frogman loves words as much(almost?) as music , not unusual in artists but his expression skill is .Often an intelligent person like him who is not a native speaker of English has studied the language to a much higher level than those of us who just picked it up at moms knee .
There is a cliff you fall over , a door that opens, after you hear X time of LIVE acoustic music where all the pieces just
fall together like it does to a puzzle freak with 50 years at the card table under their belt .

Wow!  Thanks for the nice comments, gentlemen.  And this in spite of the fact that I once mistook halcro’s phone ringtones for an electronic keyboard; ringing perfectly in time to the music.  Glad I was able to regain some cred 😊. 

I admit to being a little surprised by how the London Decca Reference beat the Fidelity Research FR-7f LOMC in the 'Love Letters' Test because the FR-7f is a great cartridge.....

Let's try the LDR against my second Signet TK-7LCa with a NOS original stylus.
This stylus is so new....it has less than 3 hours play-time on it 🤗

SIGNET TK-7LCa MM Cartridge
Mounted in vintage Fidelity Research FR-66S on TW Acustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable.

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI Cartridge
Mounted in vintage Fidelity Research FR-66S on TW Acustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable.

Halcro, I seem to recall reading that you use a pair of subs?

The Signet is more forward with better air and is sweet as a nut.
I believe it's compliance is high but the FR66 is high mass. I wonder if this is causing excessive brightness.
The Decca is amazingly less dynamic and immediate sounding in comparison. Which makes me a little suspicious as to the accuracy of the Signet.
That notwithstanding,  the Signet sounds very musical with lots more detail.

Yes Frogman....
I have a pair of Vandersteen 2Wq Subs.
One behind each main speaker.

That's what I hear Noromance.....

Thanks to your video, I held off buying a used Reference. And I run a SG/p as you know. 

Short on time right now and will post some details later, but wanted to chime in that I completely agree with noramance’s (and halcro’s) descriptions.  However, not sure yet that I agree with the implied hierarchy (preference).  Great day everyone.

I think that noromance’s comments are excellent. Lots of ear candy on this most recent recording. Lovely singing, too.

Acknowledging the fact that the Signets have been heard with two different recordings, on two different arms, and this one with a new stylus 🤪, I almost would not have believed that the Signet heard previously is the same cartridge as this one. I agree that this Signet is more forward than the Decca as noromance points out and that it has more air. “Better” air? Maybe. I think the comments about brightness and questionable “accuracy” are interesting and valid. Accuracy to the recording, of course; because to me the Decca makes the music sound less electronic and with more of the lucidity that live sounds have. Obviously, if the brightness and forward quality are what is on the recording then the Signet is indeed more “accurate”.

The Signet seems to make a huge, extended and voluminous sound in halcro’s room and (on my Stax cans) sounds like the sound is on the cusp of overloading the room; borderline boomy. The sound is, as noromance says, very forward; almost uncomfortably so. The sound seems too full through the lower mids which makes the male vocals sound too chesty and thick. This was the reason I asked about subwoofers. The first time I listened it reminded me of the times I have the xover point on my subs set too high which adds too much thickness to male vocals. Of course, a lot of this is personal taste. I think the Signet sounds more dynamic partly because the volume level heard is slightly lower with the Decca. If I adjust the listening volume up slightly for the Decca, perceived dynamics improve.

I loved the Decca’s sound fhe first time and I love it now. Gorgeous female vocal
sound. I agree it doesn’t sound as exciting as the Signet at first; but, while the sound with the Signet seems to be thrown in my face, I find that my shoulders relax when I listen to the Decca. I hear an easy clarity, lucidity and absence of grain through the midrange. I miss a little of the Signet’s apparent bass power, but I definitely don’t miss the overblown upper bass/lower mids and overly thick male voice.  Clearly, both excellent cartridges; but, I love the Decca. 😍

Thank you Frogman for once again contributing a perspective and detailed analysis which is invaluable to me 😎

Regards
Henry

There were mainly two high-end cartridges that Sony were renowned for in the 80s and both were LOMCs.
The XL-55 is perhaps the best known although the XL-88 and XL-88D (with one-piece diamond-cantilever/stylus construction) is the better model IMO.
The XL-88D was the most expensive cartridge in the world when it was released and sold in Germany for 7500DM which was more expensive than Volkswagen in its days.
There are scant technical specs available on the XL-88 but I found these:-
Specs: 
Type: moving coil
Output Voltage: 0.4mV
Frequency Response: 10Hz - 50kHz
Tracking Force: 1.2-1.8g
Mass: 6.8g 
Channel Separation: > 33dB
The compliance is rather high for a MC at 20-6cm/Dyne and they both sport Hyper-Elliptical styli.
As the XL-55 and XL-88 appear to share much of their construction, I post it HERE as it's interesting 🤔

The Signet TK-7SU is essentially the same cartridge as the TK-7Ea and TK-7LCa except with a Shibata stylus instead of the Line Contact of the LCa.

SONY XL-88 LOMC CARTRIDGE
Mounted in vintage FR-64S (Silver-Wired) ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.

SIGNET TK-7SU MM CARTRIDGE
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.
Apologies for the loss of sound near the start...🤪