Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Noromance is becoming more confident in his analyses and I think he's spot-on....
Frogman and "the very cute pooch" (Princi-a male Principessa) are also correct as usual...at least in Frogman's case....Princi is generally a sideline critic 🤣....
I agree with Frogman that the Glanz gives the Palladian more of a contest....
Whether that changes as the Grace 'runs-in'....I'll let you know 🤗

I've had my three Garrott P77 cartridges for nearly 40 years.
I first put a JICO SAS (Boron) stylus in one of them about 6 years ago and then tried the NEO-SAS (Sapphire) and NEO-SAS (Ruby) a few years ago.

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge

GARROTT P77/SAS(Ruby)

Princi (the poodle) has already made his choice.......🐩

Confession time. In the spirit of full disclosure for the acknowledgment of possible bias I should point out that I wasn’t really looking forward to this comparison; except in order to hear (sort of 😏) “Fran-Dance” on halcro’s great system. Classic record.

I wasn’t looking forward to the comparison because I wasn’t that impressed with the Garrott both times that we heard it previously. I found it to be too covered sounding with too much high frequency information missing. I don’t know if this is the same Garrott, but it sounds much better to me than the two previous times. Better high frequency detail and air; but not quite there yet, imo. Sounds very good. Still....

Sorry Princi (very cute!), but once again to my ears the Palladian lets me hear much more natural instrumental color and better separation of instruments. Miles’ Harmon mute sounds appropriately metallic and buzzy. With the Garrott it sounds a little “soft” by comparison. The bass also sounds slightly “drummy” and insdistinct. Trane’s tenor sound doesn’t have enough edge; it had a lot of edge, particularly during that period in time. Relatively subtle differences, but they are there.

The way the two cartridges soundstage is actually the most strikingly different quality. The Garrott seems more recessed while the Palladian seems to be more upfront with a larger soundstage. This is really curious: I may be wrong, but I believe this a mono pressing? Mono recordings can give a good sense of depth as well as stereo recordings. Really good ones can even have sonic cues that suggest left-right information. With the Garrott all the instruments are bunched in the middle and the presentation sounds smaller overall. With the Palladian I can clearly hear the piano to be left of center and the horns right of center within a clearly larger soundstage. If this is in fact a stereo recording then I suppose the Garrott can be said to fare even worse in this department.

I know that some disagree about this and I have avoided making these generalizations because I realize that it is not the experience of others. Based on my experience using both MM and MC cartridges in various systems over the years, with the to be expected exceptions, MM cartridges, along with their many great attributes, seem to miss the most subtle details in the natural color and texture of instrumental timbres. For me, there is often what I would characterize as a “gray(ish)” character to instrumental colors. This is the main reason that I generally can’t stand Shure cartridges. That was one of the reasons I liked the Victor (X1?) so much; the instrumental color was there. “Color” gets a bad rap from audiophiles; but the sound of instruments is full of color. MC’s seem to generally preserve more of the natural color, but unfortunately tip the overall balance upwards for a sound that can seem too lean compared to MMs’ generally fuller balance. But one can have a tonal balance that is closer to real and still not have the right instrumental color and texture. For me the Palladian strikes the best balance so far.

Btw, I would love to hear a shootout between the Palladian and the Decca Reference. THAT ought to be interesting. Another cartridge that I would love to hear is the Azden YM P50VL. My experience with various MM’s is pretty limited compared to halcro’s amazing collection, but of all the MM’s that I have owned, the Azden, while far from perfect in other departments, is the one that did not impart any of that gray (bleached) tonal quality. Don’t know why this is so, but it has been my experience; even compared to the one that I suspect most would consider the overall best in my modest collection, the ATML-170 OCC.

Thanks, halcro!

I want to thank you again Frogman for that detailed, informative analysis.
I can’t admit to being able to hear exactly what you describe between MMs and MCs.....but your examples in these ’shoot-outs’ enable me to perhaps ’train’ myself to listen more intently....?

You read my mind......🤯
Knowing of your predilection for the wonderful London Decca Reference....I was going to conduct exactly the ’shoot-out’ you wish for, between it and the Palladian...👍

And if it’s confession time........
One of the first MM cartridges I bought (after my flirtation with LOMCs) was in fact the AZDEN YM P50VL and I’m embarrassed to admit that at the time.....it just didn’t make the CUT.
It’s been sitting in a drawer collecting DUST for 10 years...😱
Lucky I didn’t sell it....🥳
It will now receive the royal treatment and will be appearing at an iPad near you shortly.....
Any particular request for music genre in that ’shoot-out’...?

Regards

Looking forward to more comparisons. Frogman summed it up. Always a great read. Thanks for the compliment Halcro. I'm partial to your Ketty Lester Love Letters track. I was somewhat disappointed by the London Reference when you played it before. I know the Decca's style of presentation can be a little Garrardy but was surprised by the relatively low level of fine detail. My Super Gold with Reference diamond sounds better. Something I put down to losses in the recording. Maybe this time, it'll be better!

Thanks, halcro and noromance.  Re the Azden:  No need to apologize.  Keep in mind that I referred specifically and only to the Azden’s ability in the instrumental color dept.  I like it overall, but can definitely understand why in the company of the great cartridges in your collection it didn’t make the cut.  I can say, for instance, that my Empire D4000III Gold soundstages much better and has more powerful and extended bass, but is too soft and slightly grainy and that my Acutex has much better rhythmic drive than either.  Also, I use the ET2 linear tracker; a different animal (sorry, Princi).  Point is, I think that we each prioritize certain aspects of sound.  I key into instrumental color first and foremost. 

As as far as genre for the Palladian/Decca shootout:  How about a nice London/Decca orchestral recording?  Would you happen to have the Solti/London Symphony, Bartok “Concerto For Orchestra”?.  The finale is amazing.  If not, you probably have the Reiner/Chicago LSC?

This comparison is a little more complex.....
Not only do we have different arms, but also different turntables.
The Direct-Drive Victor TT-101 against the Belt-Drive TW Raven AC-2.
There are many who will claim this renders the comparison 'invalid' and I can appreciate their viewpoint.
However....I switch between the turntables on a regular basis and find the differences between the two, to be 'technical' rather than 'emotional'.
The Victor is precise and detailed with unflappable timing and rhythm.
The Raven is more relaxed and just slightly less precise....but sometimes more enjoyable 🙃

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI Cartridge

I’ll listen later. But for now, I see the Decca is in the belt drive. Is this the same video we saw before? If so, it might explain the slight softness and lack of detail I heard. I think the Decca excels when in an idler (or perhaps a DD) with no damping (like springs or cork etc.) whatsoever.

Not the same video.  Listened on iPhone with earbuds and won’t get a chance to listen on my Stax set until later tonight so will reserve judgment until then.  Princi is quite the critic ☺️

Had a quick listen at the office on Sennheiser headphones. I can hear greatness in the London and lighter, sharper transients in the AS. I had a look over the other videos and see the London is in the FR66 on the Raven, all the time. As I mentioned above, and will stand corrected, the London is not performing at its best on that rig.

Great record and performance. I own it. Thanks.

The thing that always stands out the most for me when making these comparisons of gear of this caliber is just how far gear, even the best, has to go before it truly sounds like the real thing. The best sound systems sound amazing, but they all still deviate from true “neutrality” in very different and very audible ways. As always, listening this way has serious limitations. However, there is no question that one can hear a great deal that, on balance, makes one example sound closer to the sound of “real” than the other.... and, of course, system context plays a big part.

First, my bottom line. Which of the two cartridges fool me the most into thinking I am listening to a live orchestra? Frankly, and almost incredibly for me considering how I have felt about the Palladian previously, it’s not even close. The Decca wins. I think that noromance used the word “greatness”. Of course, greatness can mean different things to different listeners.

After listening to the Palladian clip a couple of times and then going to the Decca clip the first impression is that the soundstage fell back a couple of feet and became quite a bit smaller. Soon thereafter one realizes that it is infinitely better organized and without the high frequency halo and splashiness of the Palladian. When the piccolo plays those short ascending lines it also seems to grow in size as it ascends ending in a completely unnatural high frequency splash across the soundstage. Not harsh, but overly highlighted. With the Decca the piccolo’s sound always stays better localized; as it should. Instrumental timbres are more concentrated with the Decca and without the gray (lack of natural color) that I hear from the MM’s that the Palladian has been compared to. The piano sounds clangy with the Palladian and one hears wood with the Decca. The clarity that I have liked about the Palladian is still there, but there is simply too much high frequency energy.

The sound of the Palladian is much more upfront and one can feel like one is hearing deeper into the music, but there is also the sense that the music is being thrown in your face. The Decca requires that one “lean” into the music a little (a good thing) and once one does one actually hears much more musical detail and not just ear candy. The more “organized” sound lets the musical interaction of the musicians be more clearly heard.

Two great cartridges and for someone who does not listen to much acoustic music the Palladian might have the greatness; but, for me, the Decca raised the bar quite a bit. Re my first comment about “neutrality” and gear: I would love to hear the Palladian in a good all tube system.  Just a reflection of my biases, but I have a strong suspicion that it would be something special.

Great comparison and thanks for the thoughtful choice of music.

Princi, you got it right!

All wrong. Wrong song and I did not buy that MFG-610LX, just asked the seller about box & papers.

Back to square one: 24.11.1985 I bought the GLANZ MFG-310LX w/ solid diamond Line Contact and tapered aluminium (alloy perhaps ?) cantilever.
I remembered correctly that I may still have my MFG-310LX and found it :_). I gave it to my brother who gave it back circa 1990, he had stopped buying records and finally gave up vinyl. It has been in a chest of drawers all these years, in a jewel box. I cleaned the stylus and tried it, suspension is still strong but the sound is quite lame and not so accurate anymore. The stylus may simply have started to wear out as I had played it more than 400 hours + odd hours my bro payed ( I keep record all the carts I play). Ýes I´m sure the stylus profile has worn out. What a pity. The 310LX cantilever is more refined (app 2 times thinner) than 31L´s. And its sound is obviously better, well naturally.

Later in 1986 I was thinking of buying either the SHURE V15V-MR or GLANZ MFG-610LX, both highly acclaimed in the Hi-Fi magazines here. Both "hyped" equally and eventually I decided to go for the SHURE, 5.11.1986.
Steve Howe raves about the 1970´s, as the most adventurous time in music but the 1980´s was fantastic time for Hi-Fi cartridge manufacturing s, so bravo the 1980´s !
And now I have also the mid eighties GLANZ MFG-610LX, after all these years. And I confirm it´s a superb performer for high output cartridge, IME.

I hereby confirm that the earlier edition of the 610LX has a tube boron cantilever, so boron also w/ the 61´s, and a solid diamond Line Contact stylus. Yes indeed, according to the manual MFG-610LX as the most prestige model among GLANZ MF cartridges, employs tube Boron cantilever in order to achieve maximum efficiency at the electromagnetic mechanism.
FR 20 - 20,000 Hz +/- 1.5 dB or less, comp. 45/10 dyne, VTF 1,5 +/- 0,25 g.
According to the manual, the MFG-71L series are highly sophisticated cartridges ... Also, the sharply tapered cantilever with ultra thin end, reduces the mass of effective stylus-tip and increase its strenght. So it seems to me, quite literally in fact that the peculiar Pyramidian aluminium (alloy ?) cantilevers in 71L and 51L are hollow. Otherwise they would be ridiculous.
FR 20 - 20,000 Hz +/- 1.0 dB or less, comp. 50/12 dyne, VTF 1,25 +/- 0,25 g.

So the 71L has the best "specs", in theory. I´ve never heard an MFG-71L though, but might be interested to try one.
Now, if Halcro´s MFG-610LX has beryllium cantilever it is different than mine and Chak´s.
As for the miniature stylus tip in PH, naturally it is the finest of all GLANZ styli. However, it may be a marginal feature in sound quality. I´m referring to the analogy in AT-ML180 and AT-ML170 styli, both of which I have owned. And I confirm that the ML180 is marginally better than ML170 in my system, no more no less. Unfortunately the MFG 61 is discontinued and a mission impossible to find in decent condition .....

Let´s hope Halcro´s sample has a beryllium or perhaps a titanium cantilever, and that can be confirmed some day soon.
The later edition MFG-610LX may very well be the finest sounding GLANZ ever.
So bravo diversity !

Carry on and enjoy your darlings.

Thank you Harold for the above Post.......
Full of emotion and enthusiasm 🥳
I suspect however that you meant it to appear in the 'Glanz Thread' where it would be read by more appropriate contributors.....?🧐
Regards

Wow Frogman........🤯
I wasn't expecting THAT...!!
Firstly....I agree completely how far we are from truly creating the illusion of a 'live orchestra'....even for million dollar systems (and I've heard several).
That's why at HiFi shows.....even Munich.... you rarely hear a room prepared to demonstrate its gear with a complex massed orchestral piece.
Well recorded studio sessions of female soloists with minimal backing instruments, are relatively easy (less demanding) for hifi systems to reproduce impressively.....even for midfi systems.
That's why you hear the same, boring female vocal tracks played interminably in the demonstration rooms at hifi shows and on web-based hifi zines like AV Showrooms...🤬
Even jazz ensembles are far easier for systems to reproduce convincingly in the living room.
And this may be one of the keys to the limitations with orchestral music.
To reproduce the reflections and volume of a concert hall with 80-120 instruments playing simultaneously, in a domestic living room, is simply asking too much.
However....there are some concert halls I've been in..... with seating from which the 'sound' is LESS impressive than that which I hear in my living room.
Now a trained musician like Frogman will still hear the sound of "real" even in these poor seats in mediocre halls.
I, it now appears......listen (or hear) things completely differently 🥴🙃?!
For instance...even now...after reading Frogman's illuminating review of the Palladian vs the LDR.....I can still listen 'live' (in my living room)...and not be able to tell which cartridge I was listening to (if I were blindfolded)...🤔
This has caused me endless consternation recently as I feel like an 'idiot'...😵
On what basis have I selectively assembled a system and conducted comparisons of a dozen tonearms and countless cartridges...?
Perhaps my hearing requires testing.....I've made an appointment 👂

I think you’re being a little too hard on yourself. You are obviously a very astute and experienced listener and you have assembled a killer system. Your criteria for choosing your gear are obviously pretty darn good; I would not despair about that.  Please keep in mind that I don’t particularly enjoy nor seek any kind of mantle of authority about this stuff. It’s a fun hobby and talking about the music is far more interesting. Also keep in mind that I spend, on average, a minimum of about 4 hours a day, every day (some days, much more) around the sound of live acoustic instruments. Again, I don’t claim any kind of authority on this stuff; I try and put my opinions out there based on what I hear and some may roll their eyeballs and think I’m full of it. That’s ok, I know what I hear. You might find it interesting to know that the level of nuance in sound that most professional musicians deal with when choosing and tweaking their instrument, not to mention when performing, is often considerably finer and more elusive than anything we as audiophiles discuss. You may be surprised at how much time is spent analyzing the differences heard between, for instance, saxophone ligatures (that’s the little “clamp” that holds the reed to the mouthpiece). Not to mention the differences between the reeds or the instruments themselves; or between skin and leather pads. It’s pretty endless.

You are absolutely correct. The sound of our systems can be more “impressive” than the sound in some halls. And, yes, orchestral recordings like the Bartok are extremely difficult to reproduce (the reason that I asked for one). However, there are certain qualities in the sound of live music that will be there no matter how impressive, or not, is the overall sound compared to the sound of a good system. These qualities are usually in the areas of timbre and immediacy. Some of it is elusive and difficult to describe and one just knows it when one hears it; like the sound of a musician practicing saxophone coming out of an open window. High fidelity? Not compared to the “impressive” sound of our systems; but, in certain ways it is ultimate fidelity and one immediately knows that the sound is live. Re the two cartridges:

I think you shortchange yourself when you say that you wouldn’t be able to tell which one was playing. First, these two cartridges are, IMO, the two best so far.....FOR ME. As we all know, as gear gets better and better the differences tend to get smaller and smaller. Still, given the way that you have described what you hear from the various previous cartridges, I’m having a little trouble believing that you wouldn’t be able to tell which was which. Besides, being able to tell which is playing “while blindfolded” is not quite the same as being able to hear differences between the two and I have no doubt that you can.

Anyway, forgive the rambling and I don’t mean to get preachy about any of this. Thanks again for letting us experience vicariously the sound of these great cartridges. I think that being an audiophile should always remain fun while keeping the focus on the performance aspects at least as much as on the sound of it. My two cents.

Regards.

I know what you mean.....
Whenever I hear the Mr Whippy van come down the street playing Greensleeves, I know it’s ‘live’......

Thank you Frogman, for taking the time and trouble to write your last Post.
It made me realise that there is perhaps nothing wrong with my hearing...it's just that we all have different priorities and preferences.
It dawned on me that, whereas a musician is obviously concerned about INSTRUMENTAL accuracy, tonality and 'realism'.....those qualities don't 'consciously' factor in my assessments and appreciation.
Mainly because I don't KNOW the differences in sound of individual instruments and therefore don't know whether what I hear reproduced, is 'accurate' or true to 'live'.
I do of course, know what 'live' music sounds like but again.....it doesn't matter to me if the saxophone's reed is worn or split, or if the Steinway Concert Grand is more suited to the venue than the Bosendorfer the pianist has selected to play....

My priorities begin with the ability of a 'system' (and its parts) to reproduce all the qualities contained within the grooves of records I am intimately familiar with.
Firstly, the 'balance' of the frequencies without any unnatural emphases.
Secondly, the 'quality' of the individual frequencies.....
How extended are the 'highs', how deeply (and convincingly) do the lower registers go.
How 'realistic' and satisfying is the midrange....this is a 'sine qua non' for me and eliminates many cartridges, tonearms, phonostages, amplifiers and speakers from my 'orbit'.
Next in importance for me is 'transparency'....
Is there 'air' around the instruments (as there is in reality) and is there 'depth'.
Do the extreme highs 'shimmer' and decay in the air realistically and beautifully.
Next is 'soundstage'...
How widely beyond the speakers does it project and how deeply behind (and in front) can one hear.
And finally, the most important ingredient and the most elusive.....
Is there 'magic' and 'emotional projection' that allows the sound to move me to tears or quiver with excitement or shake my head in disbelief....
This quality is hard to reproduce via the Youtube videos.

Therefore....in my system......there are cartridges which have more 'shimmering' highs.
There are cartridges which have more 'air' and 'transparency'.
There are cartridges which go convincingly lower.
There are cartridges which project a wider and deeper 'soundstage' and yes.......there are cartridges which manage to give me more 'magic' and 'emotion'.
So whilst I do love the LDR......I wouldn't listen to it exclusively 🤗

Thank you again Frogman....
Even though you have proclaimed a new 'Benchmark' in the cartridge comparisons....do you think it still relevant if we continue to compare cartridges to the Palladian?

Regards 

So I've had the most frustrating 'listening' week...and I blame Frogman ☝️
I've had the AZDEN YM P50VL for 10 years but when I first tried it then....it didn't 'make the cut' and so ended up collecting dust in a drawer.
At Frogman's suggestion....I mounted it in the DV-507/II whilst I admired its NUDE LINE CONTACT DIAMOND and sat back to listen....
Aaaaahhh 😱....
Unlistenable!!!
Bass was bloated and ill-defined, treble was screechy and distorted and the mids were flat, recessed and boring.
There was no soundstage (either side to side or back to front) and no air or transparency.
In a sentence....it was one of the worst sounds I had heard from any cartridge in my system 🤬
But I persisted, hoping that 'break-in' might save the day...?
I tried adjusting VTA up and down...I altered the VTF up and down...I tried loading it from 10K Ohm to 60K Ohm and tried capacitance values from 70pF to 430pF....and all combinations and permutations.
Nothing seemed to help...so I kept playing the miserable thing for day after day...🥵
One day, I raised the VTA to the maximum setting that the DV-507/II allows 'On-The-Fly' so that the arm seemed to slope downward severely from the pivot....and this produced the most tolerable sound to date.
So as an experiment....I used an Allen Key to physically raise the arm structure within it's VTA adjustment 'pod'.
This now allowed an even HIGHER elevation at the Pivot (which no cartridge had ever required) and suddenly.....there was improvement 👋
So I raised it even further 'on-the-fly' whilst listening to the results...and at a certain point....it all clicked 🤗
If you look at the SIDE-VIEW of the mounted cartridge, you can see the severe slope downwards of the front with the stylus tip further below this. Added to the thickness of the top metal adapter for the P-Mount body....this places the stylus tip far below any cartridge I've owned and thus, thinking a HORIZONTAL headshell or tonearm is a nice 'starting point' for SRA......is a recipe for disaster.

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge

AZDEN YM P50VL MM Cartridge

**** Therefore....in my system......there are cartridges which have more ’shimmering’ highs.
There are cartridges which have more ’air’ and ’transparency’.
There are cartridges which go convincingly lower.
There are cartridges which project a wider and deeper ’soundstage’ and yes.......there are cartridges which manage to give me more ’magic’ and ’emotion’. ****

I have no doubt. However, with the possible exception of the “magic and emotion”, I’m not sure what any of that has to do with sounding better. Moreover, “magic and emotion” has much to do with our individual tastes and preferences for “more air”, “more bass”, etc. I always thought that the whole point of HEA was to try and replicate the sound of live music as closely as possible. HP of TAS fame always pointed out the danger of comparing components to each other as opposed to the sound of live. I realize some thought of him as an pompous blowhard, but the man had great ears and a great methodology, imo.

Azden/Palladian:

**** Aaaaahhh 😱....
Unlistenable!!!
Bass was bloated and ill-defined, treble was screechy and distorted and the mids were flat, recessed and boring.
There was no soundstage (either side to side or back to front) and no air or transparency.
In a sentence....it was one of the worst sounds I had heard from any cartridge in my system 🤬 ****

There has to be something wrong with your sample of this cartridge. What you describe is nothing I have ever experienced; far from it. What I do see from the pic of the side view is that your P mount adaptor must be misshapen. Perhaps the result of overtightening the mounting screws? Look at the cartridge pins relative to the tone arm tube or top of the headshell; the pins should be in line with or parallel to them. As is, you will experience major negative VTA; which explains the need to raise the back of the arm so much.

I must say that this comparison, unfortunately, is the most difficult so far, because the sound, with both cartridges, is by far the worst that I have heard from your system. I have to assume that it is the recording that is poor (I don’t know it at all) and not the issues with the mounting of the Azden, because things aren’t any better overall with the Palladian. There is a lot of obvious distortion that sounds like tracking distortion or that the vinyl is shot; particularly on the vocals when it is joined by the strings and others. Not good at all. Almost incredibly (price difference), the Azden seems to do a better job of tracking than the P since considerably less distortion is heard with it.

The other problem is what sounds like the air conditioner in the room is on. I can’t believe that what sounds like obvious white noise is on the recording. Very distracting and it actually sounds like the AC was turned up even more when the Azden was playing. If the noise is on the record, that is one noisy record.

Thanks for this latest comparison, but......

Sorry for adding to the frustration 😖

Interesting comments Frogman......
My apologies for leaving the glass doors open for the Azden so that the AC unit could be heard. I closed them for the Palladian 🙃

Interesting comments on the record quality because I have some friends who insist on hearing this track every time they come over....🤔
This may be an ideal time to hear what the DLR can do with the same track......?
Princi has made his decision...🤗

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI Cartridge 

The vinyl does sound damaged especially on the right channel. Decca sounds the most live and immediate with good depth although it really picks up that surface noise. MC almost sounds like there's dirt on the stylus. Azden is in between.

1:45 “reach”, “broken”
2:07 “price”
2:30 “Grande”
2:47 “flows”
2:49 “like”

All spots where there is obvious distortion (break up).  In between those spots it often sounds as if on the verge of break up.  From 2:50-3:42 it is worse with the very worst spot at 3:42 on “border line”.   It’s not subtle at all and I must say that this level of distortion makes the differences between the cartridges pretty irrelevant for me.

Surprisingly, the highest level and frequency of distortion is heard with the Palladian.  I agree with noromance’s descriptions of the sound of the cartridges and the differences between the Palladian and the Decca observed in their previous comparison apply.  Some of the qualities of the Palladian favor this type of studio recording giving it a more expansive and impressive soundstage.  But the distortion makes those qualities seem moot.  

I managed to acquire an unused FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7fz LOMC cartridge from 1984.
This NOS FR-7fz is the 'Holy Grail' for those who appreciate the FR-7 Series of LOMCs designed by the legendary Ikeda-san.
As Art Dudley wrote...

Way back in 1967, Ikeda-san founded Fidelity Research, a celebrated Japanese firm that left its mark on the world of phonography with its FR-64 series of tonearms and FR-1 and MC-202 cartridges. (One could say that Isamu Ikeda has left another, more personal mark, inasmuch as many of Japan's well-known cartridge builders have served him as apprentices.) 

After the earlier FR-7 and FR-7f, the final version FR-7fz came with an advanced nude LINE-CONTACT diamond pressure-fitted to an aluminium cantilever and cost an incredible 120,000 Yen in 1984.

The Acoustic Systems PALLADIAN LOMC cartridge was designed by Dietrich Brakemeier as a 'tribute' to the FR-7fz and it will be interesting to hear what progress has been made in MC cartridge design in the last 35 years....🧐

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7fz

AS PALLADIAN 

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7fz
(Sorry for overloading the mic in places)

AS PALLADIAN
(Sorry for overloading the mic in places)

After the earlier FR-7 and FR-7f, the final version FR-7fz came with an advanced nude LINE-CONTACT diamond pressure-fitted to an aluminium cantilever and cost an incredible 120,000 Yen in 1984.

The FR7fz was only 80,000 yen in 84. By comparison my Dynavector Karat Nova 13D was 150,000 yen in 83 as was the Sony XL88D, both of which have been auditioned on my TT. The Karat Nova 13D remains my reference. The most expensive FR7 was the "f/c" at 100,000 yen.
http://20cheaddatebase.web.fc2.com/needie/NDFR/FR-7fz.html

I think the Palladian is a mismatch with the SAEC WE8000 - it is at the top end on the recommended tracking weight and cartridge weight, too much energy for knife edge bearings. Would be interesting to hear the Palladian in the same arm as the FR7fz, ie on the  FR66.  There appears to be mistracking on the 1st album with the WE8000/Palladian combo.

Thanks for the clarification on the FR7 Dover....
I didn't know of the FR-7fc but note that is has a CONICAL STYLUS instead of the LINE CONTACT of the FR-7fz....
Have you ever heard one?
What about it do you think, could make it different to the FR-7f and FR-7fz?
And why.....if this was the 'ultimate' FR-7.....did Ikeda-san produce the FR-7fz as his final Fidelity Research design?

I've heard the Sony XL-88D in direct comparison to the XL-88....
And I was tempted to acquire a Karat Nova 13D after reading your thoughts years ago.....but luckily, your warnings about the particular sample I had in mind, saved me from that possible disaster 😱

Of course I tried the PALLADIAN IN THE FR-66S and it did sound slightly better than in the WE8000.....but that's primarily because the FR-66S is the better arm 🤗
Contrary to your thoughts on knife-edge bearings handling the high-energy of LOMCs.....I find that the WE8000 is more comfortable with LOMCs than with the high-compliance MMs.
There is an interesting development in the 'uber High-End' with its adoption of the vintage double knife-edge bearing SME3012R tonearm as the BEST arm for all LOMC cartridges.
Read this THREAD from What's the Best Forum and you can see where users prefer it to even the SAT tonearm....and that's with modern LOMCs like the Colibri XPP, AirTight Supreme, My Sonic Labs Sig. Gold, Lyra Atlas and Etna  and all the stone-bodied Koetsus.

Thuchan loves the double knife-edge bearing SAEC 506/16 for his LOMCs and loves his WE8000 even more...😎

I re-listened to the first track with the Palladian and agree that 2/3 the way in....there appears to be distortion but I think it's mic overload or at one point....it's my fingers touching the microphone 🙃

@halcro
Thanks for the feedback, I’m pleased my rantings saved you from potential disaster. The Dynavector Karat Nova series are obstensibly defunct. I know from personal contacts directly with the factory that they ran out of Karat Nova 13D generators for rebuilds around 2002. I was graced with good fortune some years later when they agreed to rebuild mine for the third time on a one off basis. This has been great because the last rebuild they did for me sported a microridge stylus which has pushed the performance/transparency way beyond my Ikeda Kiwame & Decca levels. It’s sad because when this goes - its done. Unfortunately I have noticed several Karat Novas for sale in recent years but they have clearly had a non standard cantilever/stylus. The telltale sign is usually the cantilever which sticks out a mile compared to the original which is tiny and is barely seen below the body. I have been contacted by some folk to verify Karat Nova’s and have followed up with Dynavector directly in Japan but they are too embarrassed to even answer. Beware the "prototypes" being sold on Yahoo Japan.

The diamond cantilever on the Karat Novas has a Y shaped yolk at the end into which the stylus is glued. It is possible to retip a Karat Nova but the chances of the yolk breaking when removing the original tip is very high.

The Sony XL88D is in the same category, one piece diamond cantilever cannot be retipped.

Final Audio also commissioned a version of the XL88D from Yoshimura, there were 2 iterations =, one a full diamond cantilever/tip the other a 1/2 length diamond cantilever/tip mounted in an aluminium sleeve.

Like you I am puzzled by the FR-7fc model being the most expensive FR7 yet a "conical" stylus. Syntax has one and rates it at the top ofthe FR tree. It appears to have been targeted at the vintage record collector. I know that Isamu Ikeda was a bit like Van den Hul in that he produced a lot of one off variants of the FR7 for record collectors or specific musical tastes. I have seen for example FR7’s optimised spicifically for early stereo Jazz. Sugano likewise.

I have been following your cartridge postings - they are great. I have the Glanz MFG61 and was interested in getting a flavour of the 610 you have.

Re the 3012 - yes I have been folowing that thread you referred to. They like the SME3012R which has a higher mass stainess steel arm tube compared to the 3012 Series 1 & II. In my view the SME has a charm and musical presentation that is compelling but to my ears is not the most transparent arm available by some margin. So if someone prefers its musically to other arms I would not disagree, however I like to hear everything possible in the groove. One of the issues with vintage knife bearing arms is that due to the offset angle of the cartridge, and the non offset vertical knifebearings, the forces on the cantilever try to rotate the arm, effectively trying to lift one side of the 2 knife bearings. Added mass helps. Ikeda, the designer of your FR7fz eschewed the use of unipivots for his low compliance cartridges and knife edge bearing tonearms along with jewelled bearings which he regarded as fragile sounding.
I have a 3012, - it sits on the shelf in my study.

The previous owner of my Final TT had many arms for review in the 80’s. I know he tried the SAEC407/23 and found it to be lightweight sounding, lacking bass definition on a wide range of top end cartridges - both high and low compliance. Of the cartridges tried the Sony XL88D was the least affected by this wispy attribute. It is a medium compliance MC cartridge. I have not heard the 8000. You might want to try your XL88 on your SAEC.

I am a great believer in arm/cartridge combinations as a unit - hence why I still have Dynavector/FR64S/Naim Aro/Eminent Technology ET2 arms and several other arms which I keep in rotation, simply because finding the best arm for each cartidge I have is one of those itches you have to scratch.

@dover 
I'm pleased you've been following (and like) the cartridge comparisons...😀
Are you able to easily hear the differences from the YouTube videos?
What about the differences between the LOMCs and the MMs?
Do you think there is a 'generic' difference in sound or presentation.....and if there is....do you think it's worth the enormous pricing differentials?

I'm interested in your thoughts on this latest comparison between the 35 year-old Ikeda designed FR-7fz and the modern tribute by Brakemeier...?
And of course....I'm eagerly awaiting Frogman's inimitable assessment 🧐
I also have found there are arm/cartridge synergies....
For instance....the WE-8000/ST does not allow high-compliance MMs to give of their best, but sounds sweet enough on MCs.
Great idea of yours to try the Sony XL-88 in it...👍 

The Dynavector DV-507/II...surprisingly.....sounds brilliantly with virtually all the MMs I throw at it. That's why you see it used so prominently in these comparisons 🎶
Yet it doesn't 'shine' with the few LOMCs I've tried.....
There are however.....two (or three) arms I've found which are 'universal'.
The Copperhead and FR-64s/66s seem to allow ALL the cartridges I've tried in them, to deliver their best 😘
Quite special.....

Hi @halcro 
Yes, differences are audible. At first I used Mac Air no headphones, but changing to iphone earbuds was more illuminating and in some instances changed preferences. I dont like headphones on my head, hence the earbuds, but I have started listening to your posts with Music Hall debe headphones I got for free - apparently they retailed for $200. 

Re the aforementioned 3012R thread, I own the Hillary Hahn album "Retrospective" that was used for some of the comparisons and in my system the resolution is way beyond what I could hear via the posted videos - the most graphic example being just before the Max Richter track commences I hear the movement of the seated audience as they shuffle around in their seats, this is completely missing on the videos posted. So there are limitations as I would have expected in posting videos, but the comparisons are still informative.

Regards MM's and LOMC's I'll keep it short. I prefer speed and resolution of LOMC's however there is a big caveat. I'd rather have a good MM/MI than a cheap MC with aberrations. Also I think that good MC phono stages with openness, transparency are few and far between, and in this instance a good MM/MI into the MM input can yield more musical results. Having said that I do quite like MI's - Garrot Decca is an alltime favourite. I really liked the London Reference you posted. The Glanz MFG61 is very good - its  Moving Flux - and can hold its own with good MC's in my system. I also have a friend who for years used $300  Grado's in a megabuck system, his theory was throw it out once or twice a year and you are good to go -  listening to music was always enjoyable. I also have heard the full range of Soundsmith including the strain guage cartridge a few years ago when Peter Lederman visited NZ - to me his moving iron cartridges are very muscial at all price points. I own a Victor X1 with original cantilever & stylus and I find it impressive but tiresome to listen to - I think the expression is too saturated if you are into photography. For years I've had Shure V15vmr & vmxr - they work well in both my ET2 and Dynavector arms. 

I agree with you on MM's with the Dynavector arm. My Shure V15vxmr & vmr worked exceptionally well on this arm.  Fwiw I revisted this arm before Xmas and it is currently in its final rebuild stages - I have altered the angle of the sub arm and pivot to stylus so I can run Baerwald as standard and the cartridge is dead straight in the headshell, in line with the vertical bearings.  It took some effort to work it out but basically if you remove the rear bolt holding the subarm you can change the angle of the sub arm. By triangulating the pivot to stylus/offset angle I was able to set it up so that if you use the standard Dynavector overhang gauge you have perfect Baerwald every time. This requires the ability to adjust the mounting position on your TT. My test results were superb hence the rebuild including rewiring to finish it off. I drilled and tapped a third hole for anchoring the rear of the sub arm for stability (replacing the orignal rear screw). Not for the fainthearted but great improvement over Stevenson.

Re the FR7fz/Palladian - on the first track it was ups and down. To my ears the Palladian has a much more open soundstage particularly in the vocal area, more articulated bottom end. What bothered me on this track was I found the upper mid lower treble "pressured" on the Palladian and get the impression I would not listen to music much with this combo.

On the second track its like the musicians are giving different performance - her voice is plaintive with the Palladian, on the FR her voice is fuller more robust. Going back and forth with the instruments again you get a different view on how they are playing - to me there is a huge difference. Which is right I do not know because I wasn't there, but I prefer the FR for its musicality overall and sense of ease. (subject of course to the limitation of my headphone set up).
If I was second guessing HP of TAS I would summarise the FR as wonderfully engaging and the Palladian as fatally flawed in the upper mid - or is it that Direct Drive showing its archilles ????.  To be continued........

Palladian on the FR/Raven would reveal all. 

Will be interesting to get Frogmans diagnosis.

Great to see the comments of fellow ET2 user dover.  Very short on time until tomorrow Sunday when I will offer some impressions.  Good Saturday, all.  

As usual, I listened on Stax Lambda Pro Sigs with Stax tube energizer.

**** To my ears the Palladian has a much more open soundstage particularly in the vocal area, more articulated bottom end. **** - dover

I completely agree with this description.  I would add more realistic instrumental timbres.  This in spite of the fact that the FR has that hard to describe quality that some vintage gear has which draws one in in spite of the flaws.  My reaction is usually pretty immediate: which of the two sounds is the most removed from the sound of live instruments?  Fidelity Research.  Which is closest?  Palladian.  Of course tonal accuracy (natural color) is not necessarily the end all for every listener.  For me it’s pretty close to the top of priorities; second only to rhythmic drive. 

For me the most important difference between the two cartridges is heard from the very start of the first track.  The first percussion instrument one hears is the “cajon brush”, a bunch (literally) of bristles bound together that give a distinctive high pitched sound.  With the FR it sounds almost electronic; too tight, hard and metallic sounding.  The Palladian lets one hear the softer and more natural texture of the sound of individual bristles.  Then, listen to the finger rolls on the bongo drums at 0:13, 0:20 and throughout the track.  With the Palladian not only do the rolls sound more rhythmically incisive, but one can more clearly hear the texture of the sound of fingers hitting the drum skin.  One hears less of the body of the drums with the FR.  The Palladian does a better job of separating the sound of the various percussion instruments for a better sense of their musical interaction.  When the violins enter at 4:20, with the FR it takes a couple of seconds to be sure it is violins playing and not a synth patch.  With the Palladian one knows right away it is violins.  

My main issue with the FR is the stereotypical criticism of early MC’s: the highs are unnaturally etched and hard.   

On the Simone track one hears similar differences between the two cartridges again from the start of the track.  The piano’s timbre is more naturally convincing with the Palladian.  With the FR the vocals have a slightly pinched quality.  Listen in particular to the change in the quality of the voice at 0:15 and especially at 0:32 when she sings “and then some”; particularly on the word “then”.  Simone’s voice naturally takes on a slightly nasal quality on “then”.  With the Palladian it sounds more like a natural change in character.  With the FR, its slightly hard and pinched highs combined with Simone’s naturally nasal quality on that lyric cause the word “then” to have an unnatural edge.  

The FR sounds very good and has that elusive ability to draw one into the music, but for me the Palladian simply sounds more natural.  Both cartridges exhibit signs of strain on certain musical passages.  My main criticism of the Palladian is that it seems to fare worse than the FR in that department.  It is sometimes hard to tell what is mic overload and what is strain or outright mistracking, but I hear both issues on both tracks and with both cartridges; more so with the Palladian.

****  I prefer speed and resolution of LOMC's however there is a big caveat. I'd rather have a good MM/MI than a cheap MC with aberrations. Also I think that good MC phono stages with openness, transparency are few and far between, and in this instance a good MM/MI into the MM input can yield more musical results. ****

I couldn’t agree more and it has been exactly my experience.  

Thanks for the comparison, halcro. 

@frogman
Interesting - we agree on track 1. However on the Nina Simone I can hear the better resolution on the Palladian, but I’m getting more grunt from her lower registers coming from the abdomen - example .51 to 1.06 where she draws the note out and you hear more of the abdomen/lower chest with the FR. More expressive. At the end of the note on the Palladian she is tailng off, whereas with the FR she pushes out the last of the note from deeper down. Of course we dont know which is more correct since we were not there. I changed to air buds and the same result, although the upper mid lower treble "pressure"that I alluded to on track 1 is lessened on the air buds from the music hall debe’s. The debe’s may have problems in that area.

Listen in particular to the change in the quality of the voice at 0:15 and especially at 0:32 when she sings “and then some”; particularly on the word “then”. Simone’s voice naturally takes on a slightly nasal quality on “then”.

Yes I can hear the nasal quality you mention, on both cartridges, slightly more noticeable on the FR, it sounds almost like she has a slight cold, but I am still hearing more lower register from her voice with the FR as per my previous example. I still think there is more vocal nuance with the FR on this track, which is the opposite from the first track. ( subject to the vagaries of my computer/headphones). One of the imponderables is the impact of microphone distortions from the early mikes. Could be VTA differences between records that might explain differences between track 1 & 2 on the 2 cartridges.

I’m going to run it through my system either tonight or tomorrow and do another take.

@halcro - to avoid having to see your therapist - they are both pretty good.

Thanks for the great comments, dover.  You are of course correct when you say that not having been at the recording session one cannot know with certainty which tonal balance is correct.  I don’t disagree that there is “more grunt” in Simone’s voice with the FR.  As you correctly suggest “more” doesn’t necessarily mean better (more accurate).  Not meaning to argue the point, but for further clarification:

Extrapolating from the overall sonic character and not just the sound of the voice one of the clues that, in this case, “more” vocal grunt may not be correct can be found in, for instance, the sound of the piano and bass.  To me the sound of the piano sounds more linear (correct) with the Palladian.  With the FR it sounds slightly thicker as does the bass (although not as extended).  You correctly pointed out that the bass is better articulated with the Palladian.  This impression is I think a result of the better linearity.  Less articulation is I think the result of that pervasive, but slight thickness that the FR adds.  This is what is heard ad “more grunt” in the voice.  A specific example can be heard at 0:47.  A simple two note descending line from the bass.  To me those two notes sound closer to the sound of a real fingers plucking a real bass with the Palladian; better articulated and better texture and pitch definition.  With the FR I don’t hear as much realism in the sound.  

A clue to the answer of whether the nasality in Simone’s voice is natural or not can be found, as on the first track, in the sound of the drummer’s brushes.  Once again, with the FR the sound is too tight and hard, almost metallic.  With the Palladian one can more clearly hear the softer textured sound of individual bristles.  

I hate to use of the term “colored” as often (ab)used by we audiophiles since the sound of real instruments has a great deal of natural color.  However, the description that keeps coming up for me re the sound of the FR is “colored” in the way that some vintage gear is: a little bit of added thickness and darkness to romanticize the midrange, slightly rounded and generous bass range that is not as fully extended and slightly hard highs.  A general quality that I hear on both tracks.  Reminds me a bit of the sound of the two versions of the Denon 103 that I owned many moons ago, but on a much higher overall quality level.  

As you correctly pointed out both cartridges are clearly very good.  Thanks again for your insights.

Thanks for the great feedback guys 😘
It's good to have Dover's new perspective...
I know you are both Decca fanboys.....so as a reward, I hope you enjoy this comparison....🤗

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7fz

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE

Let's see if Princi got it right again...?
Regards

Fabulous music. Great recording of one of the very greatest of all orchestral works; and a very good performance. For me, the most impressive sound from halcro’s great system so far. Thanks for that.

Well, it should be obvious which of the two cartridges I think wins simply by extrapolating from my preferences in previous comparisons. The short of it is that, IMO, it is not even close.

Whether we like it or not, comparison to the sound of unamplified acoustic music sets the standard for determining what “accuracy” in sound really is. The reality is that there is infinitely more nuance of tonal color and rhythmic interplay in a recording like this than in the vast majority of studio recordings; especially those on which electronic instruments are played. This is not a judgment about the validity of one type of music relative to another. So, it seems to me that if the goal is to determine which cartridge is “better”, the determining factor has to be which gets closer to the sound of acoustic unamplified music. IMO, a system (cartridge) that does the best possible job on a well recorded orchestral work like this will, on balance, do the best job with any type of music.

The Decca is a killer cartridge. In comparison, the FR sounds hard and borderline harsh in the highs while imposing a pervasive dark(ish) character to the mids. It seems to impart a tonal quality to the sound that reminds me a bit of a quality that I, correctly or not, associate with horn speakers. Strings sound steely and way too aggressive. The Decca does a much better job with the nuanced texture one hears from live strings. The sound of massed strings is fabulous with the Decca. The Decca also does a much better job of separating musical lines and doesn’t sound confused during complex and densely orchestrated passages as the FR does. The sounds of winds and percussion are equally realistic with the Decca. Listen to the marimba beginning at 1:55. Not only is the sound of the instrument beautifully woody sounding as it should be, one can actually hear the sound of the wall behind the player. The percussion instruments are typically situated close to the rear wall and with the Decca one can actually hear the reflection off the back wall. There is a unique quality to the sound of a section of instruments blending well and playing beautifully together; as if riding on a cushion of air. The FR obscures all these details by comparison.

Did I say I like the Decca? 😊






Sent from my iPad

Thanks Frogman,
You get no argument from me on this one....👌
Is there something that you are able to deduce from these comparisons with the LDR that separates the sound of the Deccas from LOMCs in general...?
Thanks again for a brilliant analysis 👍

Most audiophiles never have the opportunity to hear the legendary Fidelity Research LOMC cartridges comprising the FR-7 Series.
Here's what Jonathan Carr says:-

Here you can see just how huge the magnet structure is, and if you understand cartridge design, the uniqueness of the 7's innards will be very apparent. The magnet structure alone would spill over the body sides of any non-integrated headshell MC cartridge (at least that I am aware of), and underscores why FR never made a non-integrated headshell version of the 7. From my perspective (that of an active cartridge designer), the closest thing to a non-integrated headshell version of the FR-7 was the PMC-3, but even this remained quite a way off. The FR-7 had a radically different coil former (cube-shaped), likewise for the magnetics (dual magnets, quad polepieces). IMO, the FR7s were by far the most interesting of FR's MC designs, but the 7's basic design concept dictated that they would always be big, heavy monsters, suited for relatively few modern arms... My favorite FR-7s are the f and fz. The very low coil inductance of the FR-7 implies that loading can be fairly flexible, so I wouldn't be so concerned with the low impedance. Also, none of the FR-7s are overachievers in detail, and the top end extension is a little curtailed. so the downsides of transformer stepups won't be overly apparent. However, in consideration of the low coil inductance, should you choose a stepup transformer, I would look for a toroidal-core type. 

FR-7f
Fidelity-Research FR-7f specs:

■ Price in 1980 was 77,000 yen
■ Power generation method: MC type cartridge
■ Output voltage: 0.15 mV (3.54 cm / sec., 45 °)
■ Output voltage: 0.2 mV (5 cm / sec., 45 °)
■ Output power: 2 × 10 -8 W (5 cm / sec 45 °)
■ Needle pressure: 2 g to 3 g
■ Load impedance: 3 Ω
■ Coil impedance: 2 Ω
■ Playback frequency: 10 Hz to 45 kHz
■ Channel separation: 28 dB (1 kHz)
■ Channel balance: 1 dB (1 kHz)
■ Compliance: 7 × 10 -6 cm / dyne (100 Hz, 20 ° C.), the compliance measured at conventional 10Hz will be about 13cu!
■ Tip: 0.15 mm square Refined contact, Solid Diamond needle (LINE CONTACT)
■ Weight: 30 g

Even fewer audiophile ever have the opportunity to compare the BEST of the FR-7 Series.....the FR-7f and FR-7fz

FR-7fz 

Fidelity Research FR-7fz Specifications

Frequency Response: 10 Hz to 35 kHz 

Channel Balance: 1 dB at 1 kHz 
Dynamic Compliance: 13 m/mN at 10 Hz 
Output Voltage: 0.24 mV at 1 kHz, 5 cm/s 
Internal Impedance: 5 Ω 
Tracking Force: 2.0-3.0 g, 2.5 g recommended 
Stylus Tip: Modified with Ultimate Q4 Diamond 
Weight: 29 g (including integral headshell)

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7f LOMC Cartridge 


FIDELTY RESEARCH FR-7fz LOMC Cartridge

For me, a particularly interesting comparison because, unless I’m mistaken, the first in which the tone arm and turntable are the same for both cartridges. Even playing field and, arguably, the first truly “honest” comparison.

FR-7f:

- The better tracker of the two. Both exhibit audible breakup on Screaming Jay’s screams, but noticeably less so with the 7f.
- Sibilants are better controlled with the 7f.
- 7f is fuller sounding
- 7f is slightly more “refined” sounding

So, the 7f is the better cartridge? Not so fast.

FR-7fz:

- In spite of its less extended high frequency spec, with the 7fz one doesn’t hear the obvious high frequency “ceiling” that one hears with the 7f. I hear more high frequency air with the 7fz. The 7fz sounds more linear while the 7f sounds slightly tubby and rounded by comparison. (So much for specs telling the story). I think this is the reason that:
- 7fz sounds slightly more rhythmically incisive. The leading edge of the sound of the rhythm instruments is more natural and incisive with the 7fz while the 7f dulls those leading edges slightly. As a result the wonderful triplet rhythm of the tune is more “groovy” with the 7fz.
- It took me several listens to figure out whether the rhythm instrument playing on 2 and 3 of the triplets was an unusual sounding keyboard or a guitar. The 7fz let me hear that it is, in fact, a guitar (sounds like a guitar with nylon strings). The 7f obscures this detail.
- Also contradicting the specs, the 7fz sounds very slightly less loud than the 7f. Probably a psychoacoustic result of the fuller character of the 7f.

Very close comparison; but, for me, the 7fz wins; sounds closer to real. J Caar is exactly correct (no surprise): “the top end extension is a little curtailed.“ For me, more so with the 7f and while both sound very good they both sound “dated”.

Fun recording and thanks for the opportunity to hear these classic cartridges.

Check this out! What a performer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orNpH6iyokI

That was a great TV show. “Night Music” with host Dave Sanborn on saxophone and the sorely missed Hiram Bullock on guitar. Thanks for the clip.

I’m not sure “honest” (comparison) was the best choice of words in my post above and could be misconstrued. “Even playing field” is much better.

- 7f is fuller sounding
- 7f is slightly more “refined” sounding 

That's what I hear....🤗

For me, more so with the 7f and while both sound very good they both sound “dated”. 

Interesting Frogman. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "dated"?

unless I’m mistaken, the first in which the tone arm and turntable are the same for both cartridges. 

Almost ALL the tests between MM cartridges are conducted on the same turntable with the same arm (DV-507/II).
And the test with the vintage SPU and the modern SPU are on the same turntable with same arm as is the test of the LDR and FR-7f and the LDR and TK-7LCa.
The DenonDL-103R and FR-6SE are also on the same turntable and arm as are the Sony XL-55 and SPU Silver Meister as are the Palladian and MIT-1 and also the FR-7fz vs the LDR.

Thanks again for the feedback and glad you enjoyed the "fun" with Screaming Jay Hawkins....😀

Right you are, and sorry about that.  Not quite sure why I wrote that other than the fact that I was always bothered by the comparisons in which the arms were not the same.  I understand that you chose the arms in which each cartridge performed best, but still not an even playing field to my way of thinking.  To be frank, most times I purposely chose to not pay too much attention to the arms or table used so as not to let any bias creep into my assessment and to simply concern myself with the sound.  I guess that in trying to avoid a bias I fell victim to one of a different kind 🤪

“Dated”:

These are some of my comments re FR in previous comparisons and should help explain what I meant by “dated”:

*** My main issue with the FR is the stereotypical criticism of early MC’s: the highs are unnaturally etched and hard. ***

*** the description that keeps coming up for me re the sound of the FR is “colored” in the way that some vintage gear is: a little bit of added thickness and darkness to romanticize the midrange, slightly rounded and generous bass range that is not as fully extended and slightly hard highs. ***

*** the FR sounds hard and borderline harsh in the highs while imposing a pervasive dark(ish) character to the mids. It seems to impart a tonal quality to the sound that reminds me a bit of a quality that I, correctly or not, associate with horn speakers. Strings sound steely and way too aggressive ***

Imo, excellent modern MC cartridges, the Palladian in particular and as heard in your comparisons are generally more refined sounding and offer better performance at the frequency extremes, the highs in particular.  They do a better job of conveying the natural timbres and texture of instruments without harshness.  

Thanks Frogman, for amplifying (😜) your use of the word "dated" relating in particular, to MC cartridges.....
It is here, where I believe we diverge significantly in our preferences and I believe you highlighted in an earlier Post, that your all-tube amplification system may be a factor...?
Looking through the MCs that you've had/have in your system....I can't see many/any that could really be called 'modern' designs so I'm curious as to which 'modern' MCs you refer to when you state...

Imo, excellent modern MC cartridges, are generally more refined sounding and offer better performance at the frequency extremes, the highs in particular.  They do a better job of conveying the natural timbres and texture of instruments without harshness.

My experience is quite the reverse....🤔 
I find the 'modern' Lyras (Helikon, Titan i, Atlas) to be either coloured (Helikon) or unlistenable, with etched and screeching highs, recessed mids and little depth or realism in my SS system.
I also, like you, had the VDH Grasshopper (aka Symphonic Line) which, whilst I preferred to the Titan i....shared many of its mid to high traits.
The Koetsu Urishi I found decidedly boring whilst the Clearaudio Concerto and Insider Gold were coloured 'warm' in direct contrast to the Lyras.
The Dynavector XV-1s was amongst the best (least flawed) of the 'modern' MCs in my system, but definitely added some tonal colouration to the presentation as well as having a monotonous 'signature' to everything played through it.
The ZYX UNIverse was perhaps the most 'neutral' and least offensive of all the 'modern' MCs I've heard in my system and I lived with it for 8 years (going through two with a third as backup).
It was only when I heard the 'old' LOMCs (and vintage MMs) from the 'Golden Age' of analogue...that I realised just what was missing from the ZYX 🧐
The Palladian, I agree.....is easily the best modern LOMC I've heard, but as I described, was designed by Dietrich Brakemeier with the 'sound' of the vintage FR-7f and 7fz in mind.

Like Chakster....I don't see any progress or innovation in cartridge design (MM or MC) over the last 30 years to warrant better performance at the frequency extremes. In fact, most printed FR charts which regularly came with the vintage cartridges...are similar of better than those which can be found for 'modern' ones and we've actually lost some technology (beryllium cantilevers) that we had in the past.

So what can account for our quite opposite 'general' views and preferences on cartridge design and sound...?
Obviously your tube-based system vs my SS one is a significant factor....but in the end, it has to be 'preferences' and individual 'hearing' differences that set us apart.
For instance...you often refer to the sound of 'horn' speakers in a somewhat derogative fashion whereas I like horns and the very best speakers I have heard are the AvantGarde Trios with triple-stacked Basshorns 🤯

It's commendable then, that faced with the difference in preferences between us...we are still able to have a meaningful dialogue on cartridge comparisons...🤝 

Halcro, I will offer some further thoughts day after tomorrow when I will have some time.

I am wondering how anybody can assess a cartrige sound over a room mic. I have made videos some time ago. Here with a Jan Allaerts with a rent phono stage. At 3:10 when piano begins, no one of my cartridges played this nearly so good. At this time the needle was not in the best condition. The needle was worn-out till more as 15 µmm. A new needle is about 3 µmm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLCd4pAckg&t=268s
And here you can hear Vinyl against Tape / Digital Filehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLCd4pAckg&t=268s
Here my Soundsmith, sold todayhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTNopEk7JlU
Miles with Froghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTNopEk7JlU
John Martyn with Dynavectorhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdxdI77MJEg

Halcro, not quite sure what the point of ninetynine’s post is, but his opening sentence is a good lead in to my response to your most recent post. What I mean is that I have tried to make it very clear in my comments here that those comments have been simply about whether differences between the cartridges (usually two) being compared can actually be heard using this methodology (they can be), what the perceived differences are and, most important for me, which of the two cartridges and its sound in the context of your system sounds closest to the general sound of live music; limitations of this methodology and all. Having said all that, my observations here have also confirmed for me much of what I have experienced in the much more realistic context of my own audio systems and those that I have extensive experience with. “Context”:

I don’t claim to have nearly as much experience with nearly as wide a range of equipment as I am sure you have had. However, I feel that over the many years that I have been at this hobby I have owned and lived with, or otherwise experienced, enough different pieces of equipment of different types (tube/ss, belt/dd, mc/mm, electrostatic/dynamic, etc.) to feel justified in my “preferences”. I don’t seek nor particularly enjoy constant or endless equipment churning. For me, when discussing aspects of this hobby it is not a competition. I don’t judge someone else’s preferences in sound, but I have strong opinions about what sounds more realistic or natural TO ME. I do think that we all tend to underestimate just how far all equipment, regardless of the particular technology employed, strays from the “absolute sound”. The word “neutral” is often bandied about as if any of this gear actually even gets close to being neutral in the true sense of the word. “Preferences”:

My “preference” is always for gear, or combination of gear, that TO ME sounds closest to the sound of live music. To me, GENERALLY SPEAKING, tube equipment captures/reproduces more of the nuances in the sound, texture and expression in the sound of live music than does solid state. Each technology deviates generally from true neutrality in different ways, but for me tubes do less harm to the music.  I feel the same way about electrostatic speakers. I have never heard a midrange as tonally natural as that from my Stax ELS F-81’s. They do have significant limitations, but that is another story; most of what matters most to me in the sound of music happens in the midrange. Btw, re horns, I certainly have not heard all that is out there; but ut I have heard, among others, Gallos, Jadis Eurithmy (?) and, of course, Klipsch as well as many pro systems and they have all exhibited a particular midrange quality to varying degrees that I don’t particularly like. Dynamically, they have generally been great. I like and enjoy both MC and MM cartridges, but in the context of my systems a good and well set up MC has usually done less harm to the music. I generally find that MM’s lack in the areas of natural tonal colors and the very fine and subtle details in the texture of the sound of live instruments.  They often (not always) impart a gray or slightly bleached quality to timbres. Not just because of the fact that I use tubes.  I have consistently heard that quality in these comparisons with the notable exception of one or two of the Victor cartridges.  “Dated/modern cartridges”:

I am a bit confused by your comment. First, I will point out that I did not say “current” MC’s. As I pointed out I realize very well that my experience with different gear is not nearly as extensive as yours, but having been in this hobby since the late ‘70s if cartridges like the Benz Ruby 3, Shelter 901, VDH’s, MonsterSG2000 and others cannot be considered “modern” cartridge designs then I guess I am even more behind the times than I thought ☹️. Btw, my ATML170OCC is seldom used. IN MY SYSTEM I hear it as colorless and slightly dynamically constricted compared to a good MC. I hear the same qualities to varying degrees in the AT’s that have been compared here. Needless to say, I don’t agree that there has been no progress in cartridge design.  

I also don’t agree with the often stated notion that because “we all hear differently” this accounts for different “preferences”. First this idea may or may not be true and I don’t understand enough about the biology involved to have an informed opinion. However, here is why I don’t think the notion, true or not, is relevant. Let’s assume that it is true. Well, then this goes to why, ultimately, comparison to the sound of live acoustic music is the only truly valid way to determine which sound is “best” (neutral): whatever personal or idiosyncratic individual biological factors may exist to cause each of us to perceive the sound of audio gear a certain way as compared to someone else would cause each of us to hear the sound of live acoustic music that same way. No getting around this.

Lastly, every one of the cartridges that we have had the rare opportunity to hear here (thank you!) have, with a couple of notable exceptions, sounded very different from each other. They can’t all be “neutral” while sounding so different. We may “prefer” a little more of this or a little less of that, but is that closer to real? For whatever it may be worth, FOR ME, the sound of the Decca Reference has been, by quite a bit, closest to the sound of real

Lets hear it for “meaningful dialogue”. And why not? I won’t get riled up or angry as often happens if anyone disagrees with any of this. However, if someone tries to tell me that Screaming Jay is a great singer then all bets are off 😊. Best.

As I reported a couple of months ago.....I acquired a NOS SHURE LEVEL II MM with a BERYLLIUM CANTILEVER
Recommended by Chakster....this F-8 LEVEL II/Beryllium impressed me.

A few weeks later....I managed to find a NOS SHURE LEVEL II with a RUBY CANTILEVER.
A chance to see if there are any perceptible differences between the F-8 LEVEL II/Ruby and its Beryllium brother.

SHURE LEVEL II/Beryllium 

SHURE LEVEL II/Ruby

Morning Henry,
Now you have new beryllium cantilever (that Grace Level II above) and new boron cantilever GLANZ MFG-610LX that NOS from Japan. Could you tell which one is lighter or darker in colour ? Is boron darker ?