Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Dammit... another Audiogon post error. Lost long post @Admin

Lost long post.
Long story short.
Sony just plays it, Signet tells the whole story. Better bass, drive, clarity, delineation, and purpose. 

Very very interesting Noromance......🤔

Bummer about your lost post, noromance; always interesting to read your comments and I agree with your preference for the Signet.

Great recording! For whatever it may be worth, the greatest percentage of recordings that I own which I consider the best as concerns sonics are Deccas.

Three different Signets on three different arms playing three different recordings. My favorite sound from a Signet heard so far; and by far. “Purpose”, I like that and I agree. I don’t like how the Sony makes strings sound. Too tight and steely resulting in harshness when the going gets tough. The Signet deviates from “right” in the opposite direction, but not to the same degree and, overall, I much prefer the Signet.  The bass region is powerful, but doesn’t sound overblown as with the previous Signet.  It does a great job with massed strings letting one hear that there are many individual instruments playing.  Very full and opulent sound that sounds very realistic in many ways in spite of the slightly “gray” character that I hear with most MM’s.  

At the risk of being presumptuous I wonder if it might be possible to hear this same recording with the Decca and on the same Dynavector arm? I would love to hear this recording on the Decca and it would put some of my impressions in better perspective and answer some questions that I have. Thanks!

Thanks @frogman. I listened to both again and while acknowledging the Sony has more initial bite, things quickly fall apart when things get going. The Signet also gives an initial perception - that of being a little muddy and gray... but then the lower-end grunt lets you know it’s not messing around! Further listening through the Signet lets you into the construction of the music. I once had a Croft 4S power amp. It was finely detailed and warm and I enjoyed it. One day a friend hauled an early 90 pound Michelson & Austin TVA KT88 monster up the stairs. Hearing the same music through it was a revelation. Gone was the enveloping warmth and detail, replaced with a new, unprepared for coherence, neutrality and most importantly, insight. In the same manner, the Sony is not unlike that Croft amp. And the Signet is the M&A.

PS - Yes, a vote for same arm/same cartridge comparisons.

Yes, a vote for same arm/same cartridge comparisons.

Haha......I agree that sounds like it would be ideal 🤗
But it ain't going to happen...👎
You know I have 6 arms (5 different ones) on two (different) turntables.
So 5 different cartridge geometries with various headshell materials from metal, wood, carbon-fibre.....
There is then the issue of cartridge to arm matching.....
The Copperhead is the best 'Universal' arm IMO being immaculate with every cartridge....MM, MI, or MC high/low compliance..the 'best'.
But it has no removable headshell and is a total 'beast' to set-up correctly.
The three Fidelity Research arms (FR-64S and FR-66S) are virtually as 'Universal' whilst having removable headshells and being easy to set-up.
The DV-507/II is brilliant for all my high-compliance MMs but is not as great with the MCs.
And it is NOT particularly 'happy' with the LDR (you both know this problem)....mis-tracking at the same point on all records 👹
The SAEC WE-8000/ST is happiest with the LOMCs and does less justice to the MMs.....
All my arms have been selected to have near-identical performances with the cartridges that suit them the best. You have to trust me on this one....🤥
I have tried the LDR on ALL my arms and head and shoulders....it sounds its best on the FR-66S.
The variables are significant I admit......with two very different turntables and five very different arms with cartridges matched to different headshells (and different leads).....the permutations and combinations are outrageous.....
But it is what it is 👐
How about I play the same recording with the LDR on the FR-66S and the Signet TK-7LCa on the same arm and turntable? The Signet TK-7SU is identical to the 7LCa except for the Shibata stylus...

PS I couldn't agree with you more Frogman.....Deccas never let me down whilst Mercurys and even RCAs often frustrate.

I also play 'requests'.....

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI CARTRIDGE
Mounted in Vintage FR-66S Tonearm on TWAcustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable
Listen for the cicadas chirping in the garden. An Australian summer indicator...😘

SIGNET TK-7LCa VINTAGE MM CARTRIDGE
Mounted in Vintage FR-66S Tonearm on TWAcustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable
Listen for something MORE frightening.....
The 'ruler of the house' saying "enough is enough"....turn it off!!!
I transcended my 'Loud Listening Timeframe'...🥺

^^ Exactly. This means you have so many cart/headshell/arm/deck combinations that is not easy to tell which combination suits best a certain cart, so actually there are several possibilities to choose. Halcro knows his system´s options and has carefully chosen the arms/decks for these evaluations and of course we totally trust him.
Furthermore, as for our home listening situations, probably ALL of us have DIFFERENT combinations of TTs. Not to mention phono preamps, amps and speakers, and cables and our environment. Everything is relative, in the end. So the best cartridge(s) are the best for the listener alone at his/her home, of course two persons may have the same opinion of a certain cart but that´s another thing. This is off-topic of course but true.

Anyway, his tests show the importance of the mighty Decca Reference, but the appropriate arm(s) needs to be chosen carefully. I know one arm that makes the Reference (and the Jubilee) sing but the cart is darn expensive I simply can´t afford it now, hopefully in the future. It has one disadvantage... unfortunately it´s a dust magnet in my system: /

And as for Decca recordings, the original UK pressings never let you down.

Thanks for the latest Decca Reference option, we much appreciate your enthusiasm : )

Absolutely appreciate your enthusiasm. Thank you for indulging me to the extent that you could. I totally understand your explanation and I certainly trust your reasoning behind the chosen cart/arm combinations. It is a treat to be able to hear this very impressive collection of cartridges on such superb equipment; even with the limitations of the methodology.

Hearing the Signet and Decca on the same arm and table is fascinating and confirms much of what I have been hearing so far from and about each of the two cartridges. Both are clearly terrific cartridges. However, since the goal here is to describe the differences, to my ears and preferences the difference between the two can be summarized very succinctly. Decca: more of the music.

From the very first chord of the piece one of the main differences is heard. Consistent with the thickness in the lower mids/upper bass that I have noted in previous comparisons involving the Signet, the basses and celli are pushed forward a bit and “crowd” the violas and violins playing an octave higher; not to mention the bassoons and horns which also play. The balance between the four different sections of string instruments (violins, violas, celli, basses) is better allowing the character of each to be heard more clearly without the cello and basses dominating. The question becomes: is this because the lower mid/upper bass is a little more prominent with the Signet or because the Decca is more realistically brilliant in the highs allowing the character of the violins to balance out the blend even when playing in their lower range? I think it is a little of both. The sound is more realistically linear with the Decca and a little bit tubby with the Signet. In a way the effect is analagous 😉, but in reverse (?) to the effect that users of good subwoofers experience. Even when there is no obvious bass content in the music, good and well integrated subwoofers give midrange and hf sounds more body and weight. The Decca’s linearity through the highs gives mid and low frequency sounds more clarity...those pesky harmonics. It also gives trumpets more realistic brilliance without the slightly pinched quality they have with the Signet and trombones more realistic raspiness. With the Decca they have both brilliance and body. Then there is the issue of dynamics (the music):

Both do a very good job with dynamics, but with the Signet one gets the feeling that when the music turns less exuberant and is quieter and slower that the conductor loses some focus. This is obviously not the case as it is not heard this way with the Decca. I hear better clarity of musical intent with the Decca. The musical intensity is better sustained when there is less sheer volume.

This composition has several instances when a short musical motif is “handed off” from one instrument (or section of instruments) to another. Two examples: @1:15 (basses to cellos to violins to violas) and @3:14 (violas, to 1rst violins, to 2nd violins, to clarinets). With the Signet these four note motifs sound a little discreet. With the Decca one hears a little more of the intent of each player (or section) to connect and hand it off to the next player without losing as much musical “steam” in the process in order to create a longer musical line, the sum of the individual motifs. 

Don’t mean to sound like a broken record 😉, but the Decca does it for me.

Btw, adorable young audience member’s voice heard. I suspect she was agreeing that the Decca is king 😊?

Very well then, Frogman. That darn cart costs a minor fortune but it´s worth all the trouble, as reviewed by so many over the years. But when will this money-wasting hobby end ... I should have not started to read this thread at all ; )

Thank you Harold and Frogman for your understanding and kind words....😍
And thank you again Frogman for such a detailed and instructive analysis of the Signet and Decca and your kind words about my System.
Coming from you....it means a great deal to me 🤗

I hope it's instructive for others.....that most of these listening sessions and detailed analyses and impressions, are done with cartridges which are NOT LOMCs?
The vast majority of my collected cartridges comprises 2nd hand (or NOS) vintage MMs mostly over 35 years old bought for $90-$1000 (the average would be $500).
The supposed 'superiority' of the $10,000-$20,000 uber MCs which are establishing a 'Market-for Themselves' is a myth.
You will find exactly the same differences and nuances between them as you are hearing with the 'lowly' MMs.

I will eventually do a 'mad' comparison between my cheapest NOS ($110) MM and my most expensive ($10,000) LOMC.

Stick around......🤪

And now for something completely different......🎸

The Empire 4000D/III Gold was one of the first vintage MM cartridges I acquired after reading about it in Raul's MM Thread here on A'Gon.
It was cheap (even though NOS) and it opened my eyes (and ears) to the 'real' sound of music I had been missing since my last MMs 20 years previously.
The 4000D/III was high-compliance with a miniature nude stylus on a tapered gold-anodised aluminium cantilever.
It had a wide frequency range of 5-50K Hertz making it suitable for 4-Channel.

The Fidelity Research FR-6SE on the other hand was far lower in compliance, consistent with the Company's obvious aim to make it compatible with their high-mass Tonearms like the FR-64S and FR-66S.
The FR-6SE, with its Elliptical Stylus, sounds unlike most other cartridges you will hear being warm, full-bodied and robust. No brittleness or high-end annoyance in sight 😎

EMPIRE 4000D/III GOLD MM Cartridge
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-6SE MM Cartridge
Mounted in FR-64S (Silver-Wired) ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable.

Why not put the FR-6SE on the FR-66S arm?

The Empire was also one of the first MM’s that I acquired after starting to follow Raul’s thread (the first was the Azden MP50VL).

I find the comments re the FR’s warmth interesting and I may be reading too much into them and halcro’s choice to point this out re the FR and not the Empire. I don’t disagree about the description, but it is interesting because to my ears the Empire is even more so in the camp of warm and full-bodied. The FR, compared to the Empire, seems to rob the slide guitar of body. When Ry plays in the uppermost range of the instrument it almost sounds as if the strings are suspended in air as opposed to being attached to the body of the guitar. The sound in that range is thinner and more metallic, while with the Empire the guitar’s resonating cavity is more easily heard for what I think is a better tonal balance.

For me this comparison highlights one of the most interesting aspects of system tuning. It also goes to a question that halcro asked early on: Is it possible to hear that his system’s amplification is ss?  My system is all tube and in that context, while the Empire sounds very good it tends to tilt the balance too far in the direction of warmth and the sound can be overly full without enough incisiveness in transients and high frequencies in general. What I am hearing in the context of halcro’s ss based system sounds fantastic. The Empire seems a better fit in a ss system than in an all tube system like mine.

Thanks Frogman, very very interesting review again and we much appreciate your insight.
Henry, I´m afraid your Empire is 100 kOhm impedance ? And what´s capacitance ?

Mea Culpa Frogman.....
I shouldn't have editorialised so much in the prologue...🥺
And you're right about the similarities of both cartridges.....that's why I paired them.
You're also astute in picking the slight 'edge' that the Empire has over the FR-6SE.
The Empire is a very under-rated cartridge IMO with not many audiophiles sampling it because:-

• It's MM
• It's high-compliance
• It's cheap on the 'used' market

The Fidelity Research MMs need high-mass, high-quality arms to show their best.
The FR-6SE's 'cousins'....the FR-5 and FR-5E are even warmer and 'murkier' making them too much for even a SS amplification system (unless your speakers and room are also too 'bright').

But you've brought up a serious point about synergy and 'system matching'......
There are many cartridges which will match a particular 'system' more than others will.
It should not be a blanket statement about the 'quality' of such cartridges.
That's why it's so advantageous to sample a wide range of cartridges in your particular system to find those that 'illuminate'....🎇🎼

With vintage MMs.....that task is easy and 'fun' whilst if you attempt that exercise with current MCs......you need a friendly 'banker' 🤯

Harold.....both cartridges loaded at 60K Ohms with no added Capacitance.

Because the vintage FR-7f was heard previously on Ketty Lester's 'Love Letters'.....I thought we needed to hear it further 🤗
And against my 'Mainstay' MM reference.....

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7f LOMC Cartridge
Mounted in Vintage FR-66S ToneArm on TW Acustic Raven AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable

SIGNET TK-7LCa MM Cartridge
Mounted in Continuum Audio Copperhead ToneArm on TW Acustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable

On my phone. Signet for me. Better separation of instruments and easier to follow the melodies weaving through the piece.

Over the years, I’ve read many Reviewers and Audiophiles describing the ’speed’ and ’attack’ of MC Cartridges as a distinction to MMs.
I have to admit that I don’t hear this......not that I’m denying others can 🤔

Perhaps you can hear something in this comparison between the JMAS-MIT 1 LOMC and the classic vintage SHURE V15/III MM...?
But this Shure V15/III is fitted with a Jico SAS Stylus which really improves what is a pretty decent cartridge.
Viva Ginger Baker.....🥁

JMAS-MIT 1 LOMC Cartridge
Mounted in Vintage SAEC WE-8000/ST ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

SHURE V15/III MM Cartridge with SAS Stylus
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

I think that “speed” means different things to different listeners.  For me, speed is what I have previously tried to describe as “sense of aliveness”.  It is where the emotional component of music is found (heard).  Then there is the issue of how tonal balance influences perceived “speed”.  A cartridge that does not properly decode the high frequency information in the grooves might sound thick and tubby and the absence of a good leading edge will distort the rhythm component of music.  The MIT/Shure comparison is a good example of this.

No contest.  To my ears the MIT is a far superior cartridge.  Even though the balance is clearly tilted too far to the high frequencies it is, overall, much better at letting the drums sound like drums and not cardboard boxes and papery cymbals like the Shure does by comparison.  The excessive brightness would probably be a deal breaker for me ‘though.  The sound of the Shure is very much as I remember my Shure’s sounding in my system: grayish in color without enough brilliance and definition in the highs and an overall “soft” sound.  

The MIT’s soundstage sounds huge and expansive while the Shure’s seems smaller.  Even the space occupied by the live audience in the overall sound stage seems a lot smaller by comparison.  While the MIT’s excessive brightness distracts one can still hear the differences in timbre between the different drums and cymbals while the Shure homogenizes the various sounds.   I hear a bit of thickness in the lower mids that is similar to what I hear in my system when the xover point on my REL subs is set a few hertz too high; I lose a little midrange clarity.  

Thanks, halcro.

BTW, I do have some thoughts on the Signet/FR MC, some of which relate to the above.  

Isn’t it amazing......
My ‘aural’memory is so bad that only when I flip back and forwards between both videos is what you say, so obvious.....🙉
It’s really night and day.....

My only concern is with your ‘brightness’ comment on the MIT1......
In my room, the cymbals have just the right degree of ‘shimmer’ and ‘transparency’ without undue emphasis.
Perhaps because the bass (which is REALLY deep) does not have the correct ‘heft’ in the video....it ‘slants’ the ‘balance’....?

I would still love to hear your thoughts on the Signet/FR comparison Frogman.
Thanks......

I listened again on my Stax Lamda Pro/tube driver.  I had previously listened using brand new earbuds which I am realizing are definitely overly bright sounding.  With the Stax the MIT does not sound onjectionably bright, but pretty well balanced; and the Shure, as expected, sounds even more covered and dull sounding.  

Many audiophiles have been using the Denon DL-103R LOMC cartridge (and variations of it) for decades and some serious High-End users still have a 'soft-spot' for it in their Systems.
For $300-$400 it would seem like a bargain to sample the MC sound...?
Let's see how it sounds against a vintage MM cartridge like the Fidelity Research FR-6SE which can be had on the 'used' market for much less than the Denon....

DENON DL-103R LOMC Cartridge
Mounted in Vintage FR-66S Tonearm on TW Acustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-6SE MM Cartridge
Mounted in Vintage FR-66S Tonearm on TW Acustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable

PS
The album is Bande Originale du Film de Fernando E. Solanas 'SUR'
composed and interpreted by Astor Piazzolla.
I bought it without the cover.......

Such awesome comparisons. Thanks! In virtually every single case (100% of the time) MM/MI completely wipes the floor with MC. It’s not even close IMO. MC is annihilated. MM has vivid life, technicolor, texture, and harmonics. What a shame that people are half deaf and have driven the MC market to such dominance today. MC users need to go out to more live shows and experience what real live music sounds like. 

Well, I noticed the MM/MI superiority (Shure´s flagship, to be exact and thanks to the SME III) over thirty years ago and have lived happily ever since... but I do occasionally give a try to vintage true quality MC carts such as the Highphonic MC R5 that I will evaluate very carefully with modern AT-ART9 in near future : )

Halcro´s experiment removes the gear dependent factor, that everyone has a different analog rig, amps, speakers etc. Halcro´s tool is a culmination of carefully selected components from his experience during the decades. IMHO -Ö- this thread has surpassed the famous MM thread because it´s based on a scientific method that can be observed online in real time by all who have modern computer technologies available.
I personally don´t use that technology (I´m an old hat ;^_ ) and cannot say anything about the carts here in question really but I do take seriously what enthusiasts and musicians/music lovers with decades of experience like Frogman says about.

Keep them coming Henry .....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, halcro.

Edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MODERN AUDIO TECHNICA AT-150ANV MM Cartridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both great sounding cartridges.

Thanks, halcro; and HAPPY NEW YEAR!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind Regards
Henry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re the Sony/SPU Silver:

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

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