Hear my Cartridges....🎶

With some trepidation, because I so respect Dover and Halcro, I ask is it not the case that so-called "ruby" and "sapphire" cantilevers are one and the same material?  That doesn't necessarily mean that a given sample of one must sound the same as a given sample of the other, because length and shape of the cantilever and stylus shape and method of bonding could dramatically affect the outcome of any comparison.

Wow @dover .......
Simply Wow 🤯
Your ears should be left to Auckland University upon your demise 👂👂

Strangely enough, after recording the Sapphire Cantilever....I preferred it to the Ruby (which I had previously had attached) and so have left it installed.
I am seriously impressed...🤩

Yes...the SAS stylus is the same profile on all three.

PS Did you forget to feed your dog again.

Hahaha.....Princi had just been fed so he left his 'station' in the Dining Room (waiting for dinner) to join me.

Thanks for your impressions.
I'm staggered that the YouTube audio quality allows you to hear these qualities.

@halcro 
So on the usual macair/airbuds

Sapphire appears initially more resolving on both pieces of music.
Ruby cantilever is awful - splashy top end and lacks definition from the midrange down. Weavers on the Ruby is unlistenable. Orchestral less so.

Now in terms of Boron vs Sapphire, what I hear is more resolution with the Sapphire cantilever, particularly in the lower treble and up. It appears to be more articulate and resolving of air.

However - the Boron has a more developed upper base and midrange - I know the Weavers album well - to my ears the voices are better resolved on the Boron, you can hear more chest, body and weight of the individual singers. The sapphire loses gravitas and resolution on vocals here in the lower range.

On the Weavers the Boron aligns more with what I hear in my system, particularly in the vocal area.

I am not familiar with the cartridges, but is the Boron SAS stylus profile a different profile from the other NeoSAS on the other 2.

From my own experience I have had the Talisman B ( Boron ) and Talisman S ( Sapphire ). The Talisman S has more resolution overall with no downsides - midrange has both weight and resolution.

PS Did you forget to feed your dog again.

Can you actually hear the differences between cantilever materials....? 

That's a question some have asked me.
My answer.......I'm not sure 🤔

The reason I'm regularly asked this question is because I've often written that I prefer Beryllium to all other materials.
This is no accident.....
Over the last 42 years....but particularly the past 15....I have discovered that the majority of the  80+ cartridges (I have owned and heard in my system) that I LOVE.....seem to share Beryllium as their only common feature.
On the other hand.....the cartridges that disappoint me the most, seem to share Boron as their only common feature. 
Aluminium cantilevers sound fine as do Sapphire and Ruby. 
Recently I discovered that the diamond cantilever on my Sony XL-88D sounds stunning, but there is a 'Control Group' of only one for any meaningful conclusions on this material 💍 

This seems to indicate that I can certainly hear the differences in cantilever materials......
But that's not true 🤥
There's no way I can hear the differences in side-by-side A-B Tests and I've written on THAT 
So it seems like most things in High-End Audio.....only long-term listening can be relied on, to separate the 'wheat from the chaff' 👂

But as this Thread had regularly demonstrated....I don't have the 'Golden Ears' of other Posters and so I thought:-
Why not see if ANYONE can hear what must be, exceedingly minute and subtle differences.
Especially with the quality limitations of YouTube audio....?

I have an original SAS/Boron Stylus for my 35 year-old Garrott P77 MM Cartridge as well as the NeoSAS/Sapphire and NeoSAS/Ruby

BORON CANTILEVER

SAPPHIRE CANTILEVER

RUBY CANTILEVER

And for those (like Frogman) who can't get by without their daily dose of Prokofiev......

BORON CANTILEVER

SAPPHIRE CANTILEVER

RUBY CANTILEVER

It's encouraging to hear these differing points of view...and I thank you all.....🤗
The comments of Michelle and @noromance are particularly gratifying because, before recording this 'Shootout', I had been happily listening to the Victor Z1/SAS and considered it one of the better MMs in my collection.
After the rather negative comments from @frogman and @dover for my Victor X1/II however......I began to doubt my judgement and feared that the Z1/SAS might project some of the same 'house' sound as its more glorified 'brother' 🥴

What a worthwhile 'shootout' this has turned out to be.....👍
Thanks again. 

I agree with both. The Shure is in between so that's a pick. The Glanz is lovely and smooth with a rich musicality. I'd have to go with the Victor due to its more neutral sound.

After all, it does depend on ones preferences - ears, and listening gear - 🤔 
💐 Michélle 🇿🇦 

PS: Of late, I love more clarity - without 'ear flossing' as compared to - - 'warmth'. 
"Ein jeder soll nach seiner Façon selig werden..." n'est pas? 😉

Interesting comment @justmetoo......   
I hear it more like @sdrsdrsdr does, with the Glanz sounding a class above....🤗

The Victor has my vote, my listening gear tells me it has the most refinement / clarity. 
I do not hear it as edgy, or such. 😉
Michélle 🇿🇦 

To me it sounds like the Glanz is the more smooth and natural sounding. And the Victor sounding a little more lite up but possibly edgier and less refined. But more lively too. The shure is in between the two. I’m guess the Glanz would be the one I’d prefer. But in your room it may sound quite different than what I’m hearing? 

Please help me select 🙏 👂
Which are the best two cartridges....?

GLANZ 610LX

VICTOR Z1/SAS

SHURE ULTRA 500

Wonderful Frogman.....
Thanks for that 🙏

To my ears it is MM’s that tend to have a fuller, more tonally saturated sound; what I would describe as “lush”.  I have also found that the sometimes exaggerated high frequency “clarity” of some MC’s creates a better balance in my all-tube amplification chain which tends, itself, to be on the lush side.  Even the best of my MM’s can be a little too lush and dark in my system without enough clarity and control in the highs.  The problem for me is that while I love the midrange “neutrality” of good MM’s they tend to go a little too far in that direction; almost as if they rob timbres of some natural colors by seeming to reduce the high frequency extension needed to balance out the very full and dense midrange character.  MC’s tend to put the emphasis on clarity/detail in the highs leaving the midrange to sound too lean.  A very difficult balance to get right.  

I had forgotten your brilliant synopsis posted previously....
Totally agree 👍
And thanks to you and yyz for the tip of Fela Kuti...
Will certainly check him out..

+1 Fela Kuti!  Check him out.

Halcro, me anti MM?  Not at all; way too strong a characterization.  I own several MM's and enjoy my Acutex'.  I recently purchased a M320 STR III that I have yet to mount.  While I obviously do have my preferences, it's probably fair to say that, overall, I have made about as many negative/positive comments about the MM cartridges presented here as I have about MC's.  With two notable exceptions, of course 😁.  Btw, the only MM's that I can honestly say "offend" me are the non-Ultra Shures. Can't stand their bland color-less presentation of timbre 😝. Come to think of it, it has been some of the vintage MC's that have offended me most with their overly tight and unnatural high frequencies:

At the risk of seeming indulgent; again, quotes from past comparisons.  May help clarify my general feelings about MM vs MC's and help answer your question about which MM (and MF) cartridges I have liked:

**** To my ears it is MM’s that tend to have a fuller, more tonally saturated sound; what I would describe as “lush”.  I have also found that the sometimes exaggerated high frequency “clarity” of some MC’s creates a better balance in my all-tube amplification chain which tends, itself, to be on the lush side.  Even the best of my MM’s can be a little too lush and dark in my system without enough clarity and control in the highs.  The problem for me is that while I love the midrange “neutrality” of good MM’s they tend to go a little too far in that direction; almost as if they rob timbres of some natural colors by seeming to reduce the high frequency extension needed to balance out the very full and dense midrange character.  MC’s tend to put the emphasis on clarity/detail in the highs leaving the midrange to sound too lean.  A very difficult balance to get right.  

Assessing dynamics is complicated since timbre neutrality affects our perception of it.  All I can say is that to me that wonderful “coiled spring” aliveness and sense of the music always moving forward is generally better served by good MC’s. ****

**** Audio Technica (180):

More distant perspective as if sitting further back in the room. The most linear and without the nasality. Tonally the most realistic. Colorless the way some Maggies are...probably too colorless; music has color. I want to say it’s my favorite, but the X1 is probably the most fun to listen with. ****

**** I think that the Glanz, overall, gives the Palladian the best “run for its money” of all of them.  

The Glanz is excellent and in some ways I like its tonal balance on the sound of the piano a little better than the Palladian which sounds a little “tinkly” at times.  This is a result or the Glanz having a fuller tonal balance which also adds more weight to the bass and a seductive dusky quality to the voice.  While the piano has more realistic weight it also has a less realistic timbre overall; it sounds a little odd in the higher registers and lacking a little natural brilliance. The extra weight in the bass makes the bass sound a little too thick and with less pitch definition than the Palladian.  Listen to the three note ascending bass line at 1:52 and the upward glissando at 1:59.  Less distinct than on the Palladian where one can more clearly hear the individual pitches of the notes.  The voice on the Palladian has a better sense of purity and refinement to my ears even if that dusky quality and extra chestiness one hears with the Glanz can be very appealing.  ****

Regards.

@halcro I love Bob Marley myself, there is Bob Marley and everyone else below.  I was a kid in the 70's (less than 10 years old) who visited Jamaica and learned about Marley.

A few years ago I was walking along a beach in Santa Barbara, CA and I heard some singer playing a guitar surrounded my a lot of very young kids. He sounded identical  to Bob Marley. I got closer to see it was one of his sons, Ziggy Marley. 

A few years ago I discovered someone who I think is a giant in the same level as Bob Marley, his name is Fela Kuti. The Bob Marley of Africa. Check him out if you are not familiar.

It was April 27th 1979 when Bob Marley and the Wailers stepped on stage at the Horden Pavilion in Sydney.
Together with 2000 other rabid fans...my wife and I sat (and stood) through the greatest concert of our lives up till then....and it has remained so up till now 👏
After 41 years and hundreds of live concerts......NOTHING has come close to the performance, sound, electricity and perfection of that singular experience.
To this day, I can still recall every note, every vibration, every flapping of my stomach-lining and the memory of repeating to myself...."I can't believe this"....🤯
Just as I can still recall every mouthful of the famed bouillabaisse we tasted in 1972 whilst seated in a bistro in the Old Port of Marseille....certain iconic experiences never leave you.

Here are a few performances captured of Bob Marley which demonstrates I think....how the differences between 'Live' and 'Recorded' music can easily be reproduced via YouTube Videos.

BOB MARLEY 1

BOB MARLEY 2

BOB MARLEY 3

BOB MARLEY 4

Enjoy.......

No question Frogman......
You have been super consistent in all your evaluations and comments regarding not only the LDR and Palladian.....but virtually all the cartridges you've heard more than once.
That's sooo annoying because I don't think you've liked any MM cartridges I've played for you 🥴 ?!
Perhaps you're just anti-MM......? 😢
Can you recall off-hand which of my MM cartridges offended you the LEAST.....?
Or should I best troll through the Thread to try and discover....?

But the combination scares me 😱

I think you're wise to be cautious....and I can't recall reading of any firsthand experiences with the LDR on a parallel-tracker?
But it might just be a blessed match....🙏

Thanks as always for your valuable and incisive analyses...
And keep safe whilst practicing 'social-distancing' 🗣

That’s a very good question, Halcro. First, not all my comments about the Victors have been positive. More on that in a moment.

My past positive comments have been mostly (if not entirely?) in comparison to cartridges other than the ones being compared this time around. I think I have been consistent in my appreciation and preference for the LDR and, to a lesser degree, the Palladian. So, any past positive comments about the Victor were not necessarily in an absolute sense and in comparison to lesser cartridges it does indeed have positive qualities.  Moreover, none of the other cartridges in past comparisons were (IMO) in the league of the LDR nor Palladian. Not to mention, and importantly, the music being played was different.

As I know you know, some cartridges (all gear) perform better than others when reproducing certain frequency ranges and/or specific difficulties in those ranges. To my way of thinking it is entirely possible that the way the Marley track was recorded presents specific difficulties in the highs that tax the abilities of a particular cartridge in ways that may not be an issue with other recordings or for other cartridges.

Having said all that, here is a comment I made on 1/03/2019 about the Victor X-1 II:

**** My least favorite: the X-1II. With both the X-1 and X-1II high frequencies sound overly prominent to the point of distraction and with excessive sibilance on the vocals. ****

This is my most recent comment (earlier today) about the X-1 II:

**** Both Victor and Sony exhibit way too much sibilance on the vocals and, the Victor in particular, an unnatural dryness in high percussion sounds. The Victor sounds downright harsh in that frequency range. ****

I would call that consistent.

Two other comments I made about the Victor in previous comparisons:

**** However, a little “Technicolor” and with a bit of nasality in the midrange. ****

**** The Victor (most of the Victors, so far) have a very juicy midrange/lower mids that, while very attractive, is not necessarily the most natural and is, in fact, what I would call “colored”. ****

With apology for the liberty taken, here is yesterday’s comment by Dover about the Victor:

**** Victor - it appears smoother here than my sample. On my system the Victor seems technicolored, as in false sharpness - oversatuated you might say if you were a photographer. ****

Again, I would call that consistent.

Why don’t I own one? In short, ET2. Perhaps (probably) unnecessary, but the combination scares me 😱; and I am not about to give up my ET2 😍.

Best wishes and thank you again.

Alright Frogman.......
Enough already......😴
You win....!!
The LDR reigns supreme!! 💪
The only question is... why you haven't bought one for yourself already...?🤔

And thanks for decimating my Victor X-1II 😢
What am I supposed to do now?!!

I wonder though....why the Victors received positive comments from you in past comparisons? 

Hi Dear, 
thank you for your fair reply and explaining the prevailing detail(s). 

No harm done, I understand 🤩

Not a day without learning something else, eh? 😉 💐

Michélle 🇿🇦 

@justmetoo
Thanks for the feedback......
I appreciate it 🤗
Yes....I understand and agree with you that professionally recorded YouTube Videos make mine sound feeble 🥴
HERE is one of many videos by Kenrick Sound which sounds even better than those of @whitecamaross 🤩
I contacted Kenji to ask him what equipment he used....?

Schoeps discrete mic pre and latest capsule-US$5000
Nagra Seven digital recorder - US$6200

And that's just for the sound.....🤯
You must understand that the sound recording for these videos, is done separately to the filming (as you can see in the Kenrick Sound Video where the camera is moving around the equipment whilst the 'sound' stays central) and the two are matched up in the computer afterwards.
There are probably 'Sound Manipulation' Programs available once you're doing it this way.....just as there is PhotoShop and others available for video 🤔

I am merely using my iPad with its inbuilt microphone and zero balancing or manipulation.....
If I was interested in 'monetising' my Videos or if it was  integral to my Business or Livelihood......I might have considered investing the considerable funds for all the equipment required.

You have now managed to 'shame' my efforts and I am depressed 😥
Just kidding....😝

I can only proffer the excuse that the aim of MY videos was to see if the differences in 'phono cartridges' could be heard via the YouTube medium, and to the extent that Posters have been able to hear these and comment on them.....I've achieved my aim.
As I was attempting to demonstrate the differences only between 'cartridges'.....I could have used a direct feed to a High-Res Recorder/Dac and digitise the sound like Michael Fremer does.
The differences in cartridges would have been far more pronounced and 'legitimate' this way and there are in fact, many videos on YouTube doing cartridge comparisons this way.
However this method to me, loses the 'reality' of hearing the sound as it is played on a system within a real Listening Room....
Somehow I think I'm missing some of that realism in Kenji's wonderful recordings.....🤔

Thanks again for the valuable feedback.

Hope everyone is well and staying healthy. Thanks for another interesting comparison, Halcro.

The mighty Decca!

In short, as concerns sonic observations and conclusions I am in complete agreement with Dover. The most enjoyable and as I believe is in keeping with all my prior comments about this great cartridge:

**** musical enjoyment, and least distruction of musical timbre, timing etc. ****

In order of preference (per above standard)::

Decca

Palladian
Sony
Victor

(notice the double spacing after Decca 😉)

Both Victor and Sony exhibit way too much sibilance on the vocals and, the Victor in particular, an unnatural dryness in high percussion sounds. The Victor sounds downright harsh in that frequency range. I am tempted to say that the Sony would place second were it not for the harshness in the highs, but the slightly higher volume level (mismatch) of the Sony track compared to the others surely contributes unfairly to its perceived opulent quality (“bucketloads of detail”?). Where I disagree with Dover is that I don’t find the Victor enjoyable at all due to the unpleasant dryness in the highs and sibilance. While the prominence of these qualities crosses the line into harshness territory with the Victor, I wonder if the Sony’s somewhat softer way with these same qualities are what Dover hears as “graininess”?

The Decca is a killer cartridge, IMO. It handles the highs in a beautifully controlled way. Little or no unnatural dryness or harshness. With the Victor and the Sony there is a perception of so much activity in that range that the sibilance in the lead and background vocals, combined with the dryness and harshness in high percussion (high hat) create a kind of unpleasant sonic confusion. The Decca keeps things in order for better word intelligibility and overall musical ease. At the opposite end of the frequency spectrum, the Decca is more articulate and reveals more of the bass player’s wonderfully bouncy and propulsive musical contribution. The Decca simply sounds more like the real thing than the others.

For me, and as always, this “reality” is ultimately the deciding factor for preference of one over the other; and I am baffled by the reference to this “reality” as an “artifact”. Truth is that it takes (should take) much more destruction of musical information to keep one from enjoying a good music performance as deciphered by any one of these cartridges. We have our fun picking apart their different sonic presentations when they are all to a high standard. However, if the comparison must made, the Decca kills once again!

Best to all.

@halcro OP
Just as an aside really, as I'd endeavoured to listen to your various presentations - they sound rather 'unfavourable' when I compare them to those YouTube offerings of e.g. @whitecamaro. 

Yet people even on this amp thread had their own mentioning as regards to room and microphone used, and the resulting effects. 
I'm using the same listening tool(s) so... 

In short, could it be, your mic/setup could be improved to achieve some better over-all sound quality? 🤔 
M. 🇿🇦 

As an aside I have been rolling through a few cartridges on my FR64S lately, primarily to see whats worth keeping, and one learning was that it is so much easier to clean cartridges when you can take the headshell off. Honestly I dont think it is possible to properly clean a cartridge without removing it.

I hear ya brother......
And you're not wrong 👍
Not only is it difficult to properly clean a cartridge whilst it's mounted in a tonearm....
It's impossible to INSPECT the condition of the stylus.
It's one thing to CLEAN your stylus....it's quite another to ENSURE the stylus has been properly cleaned 🧐
To do this....a minimum 60x LUPE is required.
With it's own LED LIGHTS you can see whether the 'crud' has been fully removed and whether the diamond is shiny.
Note: It won't be able to show whether the stylus is 'worn'. A professional microscope and experience is needed for that.

For years I have been using a soft-bristle brush to firstly wipe the stylus from front to back (as recommended) followed by a dip in MAGIC ERASER followed by a dip in ONZO ZERODUST.
It was only after the arrival of my 60xLupe that I saw the 'hairs' and 'dirt' often left on the stylus by the BRUSH 😱
This detritus was often difficult to remove even with the Magic Eraser and Zerodust so that a wet clean with Isopropyl Alcohol was the only successful remedy.
I now NEVER use a brush......
Only the Magic Eraser and Zerodust followed by the 60x Lupe inspection.
And this is done after EVERY listening session.....🤗

@halcro 
Victor - it appears smoother here than my sample. On my system the Victor seems technicolored, as in false sharpness - oversatuated you might say if you were a photographer. On your demo it is easier to listen to. What I mean by coloured is it appears to sound warm and comfy, but lacks openness and upper frequency extension. Remember the old Quad filters where you could tip the top down and bottom up. I dont know the record, so I dont know if this is correct.

Sony XL88D sounds very grainy compared to your earlier demos. Maybe your VTA is out. I think we hear the same thing though - you describe it as "extended detail" to me sounds more open ( irrespective of actual detail ). Please check your tracking weight and VTA, somethings not right. I assume nothing else has changed in your system. Have you had other cartridges on the arm since we last heard the Sony ??

At least we can agree on the Decca, so all is not lost.

As an aside I have been rolling through a few cartridges on my FR64S lately, primarily to see whats worth keeping, and one learning was that it is so much easier to clean cartridges when you can take the headshell off. Honestly I dont think it is possible to properly clean a cartridge without removing it.

Thanks for the interesting comments Dover 🤔
I don't think I hear the same things as you do....or perhaps, I don't perceive them the same way...?
When you say the Victor X-1II is "horribly coloured".....I perceive it as a typically 'MM presentation' compared to that of a MC.
Bob and the ladies are pushed back towards the band compared to the forward projection of them with the Sony XL-88D.
There is also a 'rounding off' and softening of his voice in comparison again with the Sony.....
Whilst you elect to call it "coloured".....I hear it as 'added presence' and 'midrange body' which the typical MC cartridge rarely gets right.
The extended 'detail' with the percussion (particularly on the edges) is to me, just a common 'trick' of most MCs intended to impress the listeners and convince them that they are hearing more information....🤥
If you listen carefully......you're not 🤗
Enjoyment with the Victor, for me....doesn't wear off.

Your comments re: the Sony XL-88D are more puzzling.....
Firstly, I simply don't hear "the grain" you mention 😶
Last year, when you heard the Sony XL-88D in the heavy FR-S3 headshell on the SAEC Tonearm, you commented:

Then comparing the Sony XL88D to the Decca - wow. More transparent and the majesty of the performance and the completeness of the full orchestral spectrum conveyed by the Sony is fabulous. There appears to be more chest/body with the choristers from the Decca, but the vocals from uppermids to top end on the Sony appear far more transparent. As the full orchestra comes in the Sony is simply wonderful, the most complete cartridge for me of the three..    

At this point I am done with comparisons - could you please just send me the Sony for Xmas. Now back to the music....

What has changed....?

Observations -

Victor XI - enoyable to listen to but horribly coloured. Enjoyment wears off rapidly due to the colourations.

Sony XL88D - wondered why it sounded so grainy, then I went to the start and confirmed Victor/SAEC combo. Sorry Halcro - this cartridge in my view needs to go on the Cobra/Raven. Bucketloads of musical detail, nuance, but grain prevented enjoyment. If you cant put it on the Cobra, try the Dynavector. I think you will find the Dynavector puts flesh on the bones and much more solid foundation than the SAEC. The XL88D was mounted on my TT in the early 80's - the SAEC/Audiocraft arms were easily surpassed by the Dynavector/Sony combo. ( see TAS vol 8 June 1983 ).

Decca - most enjoyable

Palladium - disappointing on this track. Seems coloured, closed in, lacking openness.

Many have difficulty understanding those of us who have multiple cartridges (let alone multiple turntables and arms) as most people assume that you would listen only to the BEST cartridge in any collection.

As an owner of many cartridges/arms/turntables, I would temper that by saying that the various combos have to be to a common standard. I find in practise that if a cartridge is too coloured or idiosyncratic, I lose interest in listening.

I don't hold the view that there is a single 'BEST' cartridge out of the thousands that have been produced over the last 50 years or so 🤔

True, nothings perfect, but in sifting through the options I look for musical enjoyment, and least distruction of musical timbre, timing etc.

Very few do it in reverse and change out an 'old' MC to replace it with a 'new' MM design....

I did. After following Rauls MM/MC thread for some time I purchased a Victor X1 ( mint with original cantilever/stylus ) and Glanz MFG61. Dont listen to either of them any more.
The only non MC's I would listen to long term would be the Decca and upper end of Soundsmith range which I like.

Most people don't have the opportunity to hear different types of cartridges side by side in the same System.
Our aural memories are notoriously 'short'.....
If you replace your aged MM cartridge with a brand new MC cartridge....it is natural that you will hear a difference and be impressed 🤩
Very few do it in reverse and change out an 'old' MC to replace it with a 'new' MM design....

Many have difficulty understanding those of us who have multiple cartridges (let alone multiple turntables and arms) as most people assume that you would listen only to the BEST cartridge in any collection.
I don't hold the view that there is a single 'BEST' cartridge out of the thousands that have been produced over the last 50 years or so 🤔
To me, every really good cartridge (of whatever type).....offers a potentially 'different' presentation of the same recording.
I can happily listen to all these 'variations' without missing 'the others' because I gain different perspectives and nuances into the actual recordings.

Here are four very different cartridges playing the same track.
I selected this Bob Marley track so that you DON'T concentrate on the 'reality' of the instruments or other artifacts...but just sit back and HEAR the differing presentations and hopefully gain some appreciation for the beauties of the magnetic phono cartridge 🤗

VINTAGE MM CARTRIDGE

VINTAGE LOMC CARTRIDGE

CURRENT MI CARTRIDGE

CURRENT LOMC CARTRIDGE 

Dear
@frogman   LDR is indeed a v special cartridge, definitely worth considering if funds permit. BTW I think @halcro should get some  $$ from London for all the promotional job he has done ;)
It is stimulating (as always!) to read your impressions. Interestingly how we interpret "organizing" here. For me, 15K was slightly better organizing the sounds in the sound spectrum while for you in space :) Sort of complementary views: frequency vs localization. I re-listened several times but honestly could not detect the pipe organ moving in front/behind the orchestra, but I'm admittedly not very sensitive to spatial information (have definitely sth to learn here).  In some churches the organ is actually at the back or on a side. Interesting how this particular record was recorded, where was the organ? Halcro, any chance to dig that info out :) ?

Man, I love the LDR! As I’ve commented previously, my favorite of all your fine cartridges, Halcro. Once again, for me and overall, the sound with the least amount of electronic artifacts as compared to the purity one hears in live sound. Beautiful sound!

Excellent comments by all and allowing for what I believe are simply personal semantics choices, I agree completely....with one caveat. Always nice to have agreement with other very astute listeners. I found Dover’s comment re the relationship between loading and capacitance very interesting.

At 15k: “nicer sound”, “coherency and timing”, “easier to follow” (!), “more controlled bass, less boomy”, “organizing” (!). I completely agree with those observations. I might describe what I hear the following way (semantics); and to get the caveat out of the way:

Dover is exactly right. While I do agree that the sound at 15k is smoother there are moments when I find the sound of strings to be “a little too warm” and rounded even if “more fleshed out”. However, this is subtle and handily compensated for by the superior coherency and better controlled and less boomy bass. A fascinating effect of 47K is that bass and organ seem to be thrust forward in the soundstage.  Besides sounding less controlled and somewhat boomy, the basses don’t occupy their correct place in relation to the upper strings, but are too forward both in placement as well as character. Likewise, the organ at times sounds to be in front of the orchestra as opposed to behind as it should. 47K seems to fragment the various sections of the orchestra (and organ) in an unnatural way. Soundstage is set back slightly at 15K compared to 47K’s more forward presentation. However, 15K “organizes” the sound in a more realistic way; more “coherent”, for a much more realistic sense of a typical orchestral “spread”. All this makes musical interplay “easier to follow” and gives a better sense of rhythmic impetus; ultimately, the most important considerations.

Excellent comments, gentlemen and thanks again to Halcro for the fascinating comparison.

Stay safe, all.

Not going much recently unfortunately - have been locked down 350km from my system. Waiting for all this to finish and comeback to experimenting with my LDR.

I was wondering how you were going with your LDR @bydlo...?
It is important though, with the loading down at 15K Ohms....that the Capacitance is raised significantly to approx 430pF.
If you only load to 15K without adding Capacitance......the sound will be too 'plummy' and warm.
If you have adjustable Cap loading, you can dial in the exact 'sparkle' you want 💍

A subject dear to my heart, thank you @halcro  for posting :)
For me the differences were not big (iphone6+apple earbuds) and had to switch back and forth several times. The most prominent is the "LF breathng" at 15K. It adds a very nice foundation to the sound, organizing it not only at LF but higher up in the spectrum. Add to the illusion of the recording venue. The bass (surprisingly) more controlled and (perhaps?) less boomy. In general, more involving and interesting presentation.
I'm not yet at the load play with my LDR but will try going down to 15K definitely!

Isn't it fantastic that you both heard the differences so clearly on the simplest devices 😃
I can also hear them through my iPad and iMac speakers but was not sure if it was my 'knowing' the 'live' sound that might influence my hearing 🤔
I agree with both of you....
At 15K Ohms and 430pF....the cartridge simply comes 'alive'....
The changes in loading produce more fundamental differences than heard on many of the cartridge vs cartridge comparisons IMO 🤯
I think this proves quite convincingly....that phono pre-amps without fully adjustable loadings (in both Resistance and Capacitance) are designed without any appreciation for the beauty, nuances and NEEDS of MM/MI cartridges 🙃

Yes @dover ...I tried a multitude of combinations from 10K-60K Ohms Resistance and 0-430pF Capacitance and somewhat skeptically....arrived at 15K Ohms and Zero pF.
I say "skeptically" because that has been the general advice throughout the years, by so-called 'Experts'.
And I'm normally skeptical of experts....🥱😴

Thanks for your valued feedback....

My wife even heard the difference playing the phone on the table. Much the same as what @dover said. Nicer tone and easier to follow. Transient attack might be a little slower.
Interestingly, I prefer 47k on my lesser Deccas. Mostly because I love detail and the sound I get. 

@halcro
1st imression at 47k was a bit of a surprise for me, with several Garrot Decca Golds under my belt, the LDR was a lot smoother at 47k than the Decca Golds of old at 47k - they were rip your ears off.

Having said that moving to the 15k, for me the variations are quite noticeable ( even on Mac earbuds ). At 15k the string sections are not only more fleshed out but the coherency and timing, particularly in the upper bass/lower mid area is much crisper and more rhythmically coherent.

Frogman can comment on instrument accuracy, he might suggest a little too warm on some sections of the orchestra, but for me the timing and coherency at 15k easily outstrips 47k, the music far better communicated and more enjoyable at this setting.

With the old Garrott modded Deccas I preferred 22k - have you tried this value with the LDR ?

THE LONDON DECCA REFERENCE
A phono-cartridge surrounded by mysticism and controversy....
A MI CARTRIDGE WITHOUT CANTILEVER which arrives in its PURPLE VELVET POUCH and looks.....RATHER PLAIN 🥴?

Apart from the 'mythology' around this cartridge....there is a general 'directive' that the LDR does NOT sound its best when loaded at the standard 47K Ohms Resistance with Zero (lowest) Capacitance....

Here is your chance to listen.....

LDR R-47K Ohms Cap-Zero

LDR R-15K Ohms Cap 430 pF

If you can hear the differences via YouTube, to what are quite subtle variations.....it will say a lot about the value of YouTube Videos.
Please let me know....🤗

Do the tables using the same tonearms have different presentations that we would  notice on our end.

Tough question Steve.....
The specific sound of each cartridge, tonearm and turntable is so intertwined as a combination, that I'm not prepared to try and apportion qualities to the individual components.
What I do know....is that some cartridges sound better on one arm than another and ALL cartridges sound differently with different headshells 🙃

Palladian on Raven on my end sounds better than Victor. But I would probably  give the tonearm the more credit here.

I think you're onto something here Steve.....
The Copperhead is just an amazing-sounding arm 🤩

Palladian on Raven on my end sounds better than Victor. But I would probably  give the tonearm the more credit here. More full bodied and smooth. What do you think? You know your tables sound characteristics. Do the tables using the same tonearms have different presentations that we would  notice on our end.

@halcro 

i see you started out with comparing the AT-ML180. Sorry I don’t know why I missed that. And the discussion discussed what I asked. Thanks.
Steve.

I’ve had many people contact me asking where they can find a VICTOR X-1II?
The bad news is........you probably can’t 😢
Even if you do.....it will probably have a damaged or missing stylus.
If you’re patient enough to wait 2-3 years....you might get lucky to see one advertised on Japan Yahoo with a good stylus (like I did).
Some more bad news......
You’ll have to outlay north of $1000+ to win it at auction.
Same goes for the VICTOR X-1 and X-1IIE 

I don’t understand why.....but Jico do not produce a SAS replacement styli for the X-1 variants.
They DO however produce SAS STYLI replacements for the VICTOR Z-1 model.
And the Z-1 Cartridges are way more plentiful and CHEAP 🎉
Find one without a stylus for $40....add a brand new Jico SAS for $250 and for less than $300, you will have a cartridge better than any modern current-production MM up to $1000 and beyond.

Let’s see what the listening panel thinks....🧐

VICTOR Z-1/SAS MM CARTRIDGE

VICTOR Z-1/SAS MM CARTRIDGE

I listened again on my all tube/Spendor/REL S30 rig. Amazing how it now sounds so more like a recording in free space compared to my headphones.

Yes....I much prefer hearing the 'air', 'soundstage' and 'instrument locations' provided by speakers over headphones 🤩

I am convinced the Raven adds a golden warmth to the reproduction.

I've always stated that the Belt-Drive Raven projects a more relaxed and somewhat less analytical interpretation than the DD Victor....and that's not surprising.
"Golden warmth" sounds quite inviting....🤗

All the early recordings with the Palladian were done when it was mounted on the SAEC Arm on the Victor.
Dover then suggested it be moved to the Palladian as he felt it wasn't quite optimised on the WE-8000/ST....
We then did a comparison which concluded that the Palladian on the Raven was indeed better than on the Victor.
Here they are again.....

PALLADIAN ON VICTOR TT-101

PALLADIAN ON RAVEN

Whilst you have, admittedly...always expressed reservations about the Raven's abilities vis-a-vis the Victor......it has never stopped Frogman from choosing his 'favourite' LDR played on the Raven.
Nor has it hindered his appreciation for the Palladian when mounted on either table.

I appreciate your sensibilities and preferences are perhaps more 'acute' in certain respects than for me or Frogman....
And that's fine. As Frogman says..."Vive la difference!!"

What I find encouraging about your particular preferences, is that the humble 35 year-old MM Victor X-1II competes with a $10,000 LOMC cartridge.....and comes out on top 🎉
In some ways, I agree with you 🤯

Thanks for your contributions.

I listened again on my all tube/Spendor/REL S30 rig. Amazing how it now sounds so more like a recording in free space compared to my headphones. I'm sure I heard your dog bark. I am convinced the Raven adds a golden warmth to the reproduction. There is also a thickening in the upper bass and lower mids. You played the AS on your SAEC arm in 2019, and it doesn't have that sound on the Victor. I also heard an album I know intimately on a Raven (Basis table?) at AXPONA '19 and that aspect was there then too. So, I can't be certain how the actual cartridges perform in their own right. 

@halcro 
 I meant to put your name on my previous post too. Also, how did your AT-ML180 hold up in comparison to the  other cartridges compared? 

@ 
@chakster 
I guess my AT-ML180 ofc may be Boron. It’s gold plated.

But if you look at the first and second comments Chakster made at the beginning of this. He says the occ comes with gold plated beryllium cantilever. And the ofc is gold plated boron pipe. According to him they are both gold plated. The ofc is the earlier version so I assumed it would be the beryllium and the occ being later would probably be boron. Wasn’t beryllium phased out in the years the occ was available?

Hi Steve,
Beryllium normally looks like THIS 
But if your AT-ML180 stylus is not GOLD-COATED......then it should be Beryllium 😃
You lucky dog....🎉

Regards
Henry

@halcro 

I did listen with my computer speakers to some also. It just wasn’t good enough to make a judgement like others could. Yes, like many others I find myself with much time on my hands now.  Spent the last three three years building my new business and neglecting my hobby. Good to be back. Just hope it’s not too long. Lol.
About the  AT-ML180. I have an OFC version I got recently and was told it was beryllium. It’s not in original packaging and don’t know how to tell for sure. I had it inspected by SoundSmith and should have asked at the time. They did tell me it looked to have an estimated 150 hours usage with an expected 850 left. Nice to know. I got it from a guy named Ellie that some may know. Do you know how to tell if it is beryllium or boron?

Steve.

It took awhile but I read the whole thing.

Good grief....a marathon session 🥴
Did you only READ the whole thing @sdrsdrsdr...or also LISTEN to all the recordings?
I know you wrote that you’re not setup to listen properly....but are you able to listen AT ALL?

Regarding the AT-ML180/OCC.....the OCC stands for Ohno Continuous Casting process

In 1986 the Ohno Continuous Casting (OCC) Process was developed by professor Ohno of the Chiba Institute of Technology in Japan. The wire made by this process is claimed by our manufacturer to be 99.999 % pure and in our thinnest wire size (50 micron) that it has one crystal boundary per 6.5 km on avearge. Normal wire has a number of contaminants particularly Oxygen, Sulphur, Lead, Antimony and Aluminium and is typically 99.97% pure and has a cristal boundary perhaps every 10 mm.

This, from a knowledgeable audiophile:-

OFC is Oxygen Free Copper
OCC is Ohno Continuous Casting

Oxygen free is a good thing because it is corrosive. Just a high purity copper will do fine thanks.
Professor Ohno devised a method so there would be no or few boundaries in the copper.

In theory both of these are a good thing but the effect is really tiny and probably inaudible.
The OCC in particular is hardly relevant. Every solder joint or RCA or banana connection will have vastly larger breaks and I am skeptical that it is possible to audibly detect misalignment in the copper boundaries.

In the latter part of the ’80s.....Beryllium was declared "unsafe" to work with in some processes and cartridge cantilever manufacturing is one of these, hence....no modern cartridges utilise Beryllium.
OCC and OFC are independent of whether Beryllium or Boron is used.

On the original packaging of my AT-ML180/OCC....you can see the SEPARATE LABEL stating that it came with a "Gold-Plated Boron Cantilever".
This label obviously covers the original proclamation of BERYLLIUM CANTILEVER.....
That’s the model I will continue to seek...🧐

Regards

It took awhile but I read the whole thing. Thanks for sharing. Im not setup to listen to this properly with headphones but appreciated everyone’s comments. And I must say, excellent writing. I’ve been following your crowd for years and just recently experiencing vintage mm cartridges. An nos Stanton 881s. Have acquired a couple others (top models) but haven't tried them yet.  @halcro 
A  question  about the AT-ML180/OCC. I always thought the OFC was the earlier version and was Beryllium. And the OCC was later and boron?

2nd generation, overall much lower "fi". Loss of detail in about every respect. Loss of highs, muddy mids and lows, shrunken soundstage both side to side and front to back. As a result and most importantly, obvious decrease in musical aliveness. Wow!

Yeah....massive deterioration 😱
I wanted to objectively establish a 'gauge' for the relationship between the recorded YouTube Video and the 'Live Event' (so to speak).....
I've been fairly pleased with the quality of sound on the videos compared to what I hear in situ....
Of course we all know that 'The Real Thing' must be better than a recording of it.....but there are nowhere near the losses that are evident from 1st to 2nd Generation recordings.
I don't know how to explain this as the 1st Gen recording is being played back through the same preamp, amps and speakers using the same interconnects and cables.
The only difference I can pinpoint is that the signal for the 2nd Gen is going through the Line-Level input of the preamp rather than the phono....?
But all my other sources which do the same thing (tuner, tape, CD, aux) sound wonderful...🤗
Something is causing this which might be evident to others....?

Thanks for the evaluation Frogman.....