Fantastic thread @halcro ! Thank you v much for all your effort and sharin your experience, really invaluabe!
DLR has been long on my radar and your findings only heat up my interest. I'd use it on my EMT 930 with silver wired FR64s and Orsonic AV-101 headshell (~16g), connected by AQ Leopard silver cable. Any experience on how DLR mates with silver wires and the Orsonic headshell?
Thank you in advance,b
|
|
Thanks for all the great recommendations guys 😃
And welcome back Noromance....we have missed your commentary.
And your results with the Yamamoto HS-4 Carbon Fiber headshell still baffle me 😳 |
Late to the party. The Barodin Symphony No.2 shootout. First off, your system sounds great especially with my upgraded subwoofer. Second, the Sony really does excel. I listened to the LDR first and it sounded good but the subdued triangle near the opening set up its downfall to the Sony. Sure enough, the D was more detailed and made more sense of the music. |
Great suggestions frogman, the Four Last Song by Schwarzkopf and Szell would be one of my desert island picks. Solti’s Elektra too (yup, I’d need a pretty big island...). But the original ED2 label Decca pressing is actually cheaper than the Speakers Corner reissue and probably sounds much better.
Halcro, if you ARE a Decca fan (and which classic music fan isn’t?) you should really hear ’An Alpine Symphony’ by Mehta. A sonic spectacular in the best sense of the word. This guy had a great tenure with the LAPO, yielding many excellent recordings. Most of these are from the later ’narrow band’ label era that ’pressing snobs’ usually sneeze at, so they’re available at very modest prices. His ’Ein Heldenleben and ’Don Quichote’ are also very good.
While we’re at it, I’ll even go on record saying that his Mahler 3 is THE best sounding orchestral recording in my entire collection. You won’t believe what you’ll hear.
|
My previous message prompted me to play that record again and what do you know, I had the names mixed up. The earlier BPO recording is also with Paul Tortelier. Oeps.....
I played both versions and my memory that they're quite different still makes sense, thank goodness. It just goes to show how a decade can change an artist's interpretation, in this case both the cellist and the conductor. Fascinating.
|
Great comments, edgewear. I share you appreciation of Strauss’ “Don Quixote”. Fantastic work. Tone poem which, as you say, is practically a cello concerto; although the role of the viola (Sancho Panza) in this work is not to be underestimated. One of many examples of Strauss’ genius. Hard for me to name a best Strauss composition since there are so many great ones. I would also point to “An Alpine Symphony”, “Till Eulenspiegels”, “Ein Heldenleben” as particularly good examples of his orchestration genius, And, of course, his operas; for me, “Elektra” in particular.
Halcro, being a fan of Decca recordings, if you don’t own it, the Decca “Elektra” with Solti/Vienna is fantastic and available as a reissue from Speakers Corner. Hair raising music. I am also particularly fond of his “Four Last Songs”. Schwarzkopf’s recording on EMI is fantastic. If forced to pick a favorite Strauss work, this might be it.
Regards.
|
Good find, Halcro. Kempe was surely one of the great Strauss conductors. You should also try his way with Wagner and Brahms. And HMV did some historic recordings behind the iron curtain in the 70's. Another high point was Karajan's Meistersinger, also with the Dresden orchestra.
For me, Strauss' greatest instrumental piece is Don Quichote, a Cello Concerto in all but name. Paul Tortelier as soloist on the Dresden set is fantastic, but Kempe's recording with Pierre Fournier more than a decade earlier with the Berlin Philharmonic (also on HMV) is perhaps even better. Both performances by these great cellists are masterly - but very different - studies into the Don's complex character. The tenderness, the melancholy, the lunacy. Marvelous stuff!
|
Since finding my 'Holy Grail' of cartridges ( SONY XL-88D)....I wondered whether or not I would be able to listen to all the other cartridges I have collected and culled over the last 12 years...👂 As I intimated in my last Post....the MOST important link in the analogue chain, is the quality of the recording, mastering, engineering and pressing of the actual disc. After discovering the superlative quality of the series of recordings of the Complete Works of Richard Strauss with Rudolf Kempe conducting the Dresden State Orchestra in 1973 released by EMI and HMV in 1974....I bought every record I could find on Discogs for pittances. I'm done with purchasing new re-releases offered for $30-60 with warps, surface noice, clicks and pops and inferior sound to the original releases 😡 Whatever you can hear on this video, is nothing compared to the quality filling my room. Dynamic performances of massed orchestras in full flight are the hardest to both record and playback with the realism of the 'live' event. That's why you rarely hear any exhibitor at a HiFi Show attempt it... These recordings (by VEB Deutsche Schallplatten Berlin DDR) come closer than almost any I have heard. Although the music of Richard Strauss is not to everyone's taste....if you couldn't be happy with the sound from these recordings played with a vintage MM Cartridge....I think you may be too fussy 🤗 RICHARD STRAUSS |
I would love to hear your system, Halcro; and have no doubt that it sounds fantastic. If I am ever in your neck of the woods I’ll be sure to let you know.
The issue of “superiority” is a tricky one, imo. For me, the respective sounds of, in this case, two truly excellent components get to a point when “superiority” is determined by superiority in specific areas that are sonic priorities; even when the other component does better in areas which are not sonic priorities. I wrote:
**** Sound staging excellence takes a back seat for me no matter how impressive or fun it may be with another cartridge. ****
You wrote:
**** The sheer size, height and depth of the image created.
The pinpoint imaging.
The transparency.
The shimmering highs and realistic lows. ****
As you have stated, or suggested, several times previously and as the above comment seems to prioritize, sound staging is extremely important for you. Less so for me. I am sure that we can agree that the soundstaging with the Decca is at least very good. I think we can then take those considerations off the table for the sake of this discussion. Tonal considerations then become what determines for me which is “superior”. Based on this and previous comparisons I would say that you prefer a sound with a lower midrange/upper bass range that is a little more prominent than would be my preference. Nothing wrong with that at all. I feel that even a little too much prominence in that range, and especially if not well integrated and tonally consistent with the midrange obscures midrange nuance which is the most important aspect of sound for me. This is the reason that I continue to suffer the bass inadequacies of my beloved Stax F81’s. I have not heard a more tonally truthful midrange.
The sound with the Decca pushes some of the same buttons for me. There is something simply tonally correct about its sound in the context of your system as heard this way. Perhaps “in situ” it would be different, but my priorities would still be the same. If you ever tire of the Decca, feel free to send it to me; I think Dover already has dibs on the Sony ☺️. What an amazing collection of cartridges you have. Congrats!
I’ll give the Strauss a listen shortly. One of my very favorite composers and certainly not under appreciated in my book.
Best wishes.
|
Still following with interest. I'm trying to find time to listen on my digital rig. Will try for tonight. @halcro I have not forgot the headshell issue 😉 |
Thanks, Halcro for another interesting comparison and tell Princi “nice haircut”. 🐶 Glad you and Dover liked the recording Frogman...Decca 😃 You are a 'true-blue' (Australian idiom) Decca (cartridge) 'Fan-Boy'....👏 Not that there's anything wrong with that.... Whilst appreciating all your points (and I think we've agreed on this previously).....I am reasonably confident that were you here, in my room.....you would have to agree on the superiority of the XL-88D 🙃 The sheer size, height and depth of the image created. The pinpoint imaging. The transparency. The shimmering highs and realistic lows. They all combine to create an approximation of 'The Real Thing' more convincing than I've heard since the Avant-Garde Trios with triple-stacked BassHorns at Munich 2017......and THEY did it without the Sony!!! Be that as it may....it's obvious that the quality of 'recording' is more important than EVERYTHING else when it comes to analogue..... You'll notice that in the 140 odd videos I've made for this Thread.....I've used only 'Good' to 'Great' recordings IMO...and haven't repeated any 🤗 Mostly I've eschewed the 'recognised' 'approved' audiophile pressings from Mercury and RCA because I don't agree with their purported 'excellence' 🤥 Deccas are generally more to my liking but there are many other small, independent and often unheard of labels/recording studios which offer rewarding recordings. Richard Strauss is one of my favourite composers and IMO....one of the most underrated 😢....and I've had several recordings released by World Record Club in Australia sourced from HMV and EMI but apparently pressed in Australia from the original first stamper. Listed on the back:- Recording : Lukaskirche, Dresden Producer : David Mottley Engineer : Klaus Struben Recorded in co-production with the former VEB Deutsche Schallplatten, Berlin I bought these in my teens and used to play them on my father's turntable with mono ceramic cartridge 😱 Luckily I didn't ruin them... Until I played them recently on my current System.....I had never appreciated the quality of their recording/mastering/mixing. I'll be interested to see if you agree? RICHARD STRAUSS |
I tried, I really tried. I have made my feelings about the Decca known many times previously and I wanted to be sure that no bias crept into my assessment this time around. In previous comparisons I always felt that the Decca was a superior cartridge to the Palladian in the areas that are priorities for me: tonal truthfulness (naturalness) and linearity. In those areas and compared to the Palladian the Decca wins handily once again. Sound staging excellence takes a back seat for me no matter how impressive or fun it may be with another cartridge. Glad to know the Dover agrees with my ranking of the two. Sony/Decca: Awesome recording. Beautiful music. Much of the music was lifted and used in the Broadway musical “Kismet”. The melody heard here in the beginning was used as the melody for the song “Stranger In Paradise” from that musical. Many of the sound staging characteristics that I heard in previous comparisons with the Decca are evident here. The Decca presents a more compact soundstage and a mid/rear of the hall perspective. Very well organized soundstage, but one feels as if sitting about half way toward the back of the hall. The Sony gives a more upfront perspective with larger individual images and a great sense of front to back with images. This is the first time that this quality has been so clear in one of these comparisons. The clarinet clearly and correctly sounds that it is sitting further back than the flute and piccolo. A very impressive sound stage. Likewise, one can hear that the French Horn is sitting further back still and there is a hint of the sound bouncing off the back wall. Great stuff. The Sony is amazing that way and I can only imagine what it sounds like in Halcro’s room. There are a couple of areas where the Decca still wins for me, however. Again, these areas may not be priorities for some and we are comparing two fantastic cartridges. I would be hard pressed to call one cartridge superior to the other and certainly would not say that the Sony “blows the Decca out of the water”. Again, this according to my priorities. Within the Decca’s smaller and less impressive sound stage there is slightly better linearity and with certain instruments just a slightly better sense of tonal truthfulness. All very subtle and, again, may not matter as much to some listeners and may not be evident with some music. Overall, the Sony sounds more fleshed out; perhaps a bit too much so at times. It does give a great sense of the inner texture of instrumental timbres. As does the Decca, but which does it in a more compact way due to the smaller individual images. For me, with the Sony there is a slight thickness in the lower mids/upper bass that is not present with the Decca. Listen to the sound of the bass drum. More powerful with the Sony, but one hears the sound of mallet hitting skin and the way that the drum was tuned a little more clearly with the Decca’s. For me the overall sound with the Sony is just a little corpulent at times compared to the sound with the Decca which is a bit leaner. Personally, I would feel the urge to turn down the volume on the subs one notch; or perhaps lower the xover point just a couple of hertz. Not so with the Decca. I love the sound of the triangle with the Decca. Leaner than with the Sony, but with a beautiful shimmer and long decay. I agree with Dover that the Sony gives a great sense of the grandeur of the music and with his other comments in general. It is very impressive in that regard. Two fantastic cartridges and I would be hard pressed to choose one over the other. Thanks, Halcro for another interesting comparison and tell Princi “nice haircut”. https://youtu.be/HEOEZ-HOWkU |
No, not really. I only have a humble Nakamichi 700 II cassette recorder. I bought it for nostalgic reasons mostly and while it sounds very nice, it's no match for vinyl playback. For that you probably need to look at 2 track open reel at 38 cm/sec. I've been looking at this from a distance, 'cause this is where my wife draws the line. You have to pick your fights and this isn't one of them.
Anyway, the golden standard of course are professional master recorders like the Studer A-80, some of which have found their way to domestic surroundings. I believe one member here - mikelavigne - even has two, so he should be able to let you in on the intricacies of finding one is good condition. There was a time when these machines sporadically appeared on the open market at reasonable prices, but those days have passed.
There's also the top models of domestic audio, like Revox A77, Technics RS-1700 or even Akai GX-747 (not sure if I have all the numbers correct), but again prices have gone up dramatically for well kept specimen. The reason is probably those darned reviewers who have been plugging open reel tape as the best analog source for some years now, fueling a whole new market of refurbished / redesigned tape machines and 'master tape copies' at very high prices. But with your Sony you could beat them at their game and create your own master tape copies.......
|
Hmmm....interesting idea Edgewear 🤔
Thanks...
Any recommendations?
|
@halcro,
Digitizing would be very silly of course, but you now have the perfect excuse to buy the best open reel tape machine you can afford to preserve the Sony sound in all analog.......
|
Thanks Dover for your brilliant commentary....👍 At this point I am done with comparisons - could you please just send me the Sony for Xmas. Hahaha 🤣 And no......it’s not your imagination! The Sony is a wonderment... Don’t forget....after dozens of ’shoot-outs’ and comparisons with nearly 30 cartridges, the Palladian and DLR have both risen to the top (in our collective opinions)...and sometimes by just very subtle and incremental degrees. In other words...they are the ’Creme de la Creme’...🤗 To then have the XL-88D come along and literally ’blow’ them out of the water is unfathomable 🤯 I have never before, heard a cartridge display such obvious overwhelming superiority...And it’s scary 😳 As I stated in my ’Diamond Cantilever Thread’....how can I now listen to anything else?! But at the same time.....how can I play it AT ALL......knowing with every revolution of the platter that I am slowly ’killing it’ 🥴 Perhaps I should ’digitise’ all my favourite recordings with the Sony to preserve its sound for posterity? "Perfect Sound Forever" 🎼💿🎶 |
Excellent comments re the Sony/Palladian, Dover. Loved the Formula 1 analogy. We are hearing the same things even if described somewhat differently. Comments on the “three way” forthcoming; a little busy for a day or so. Regards to all. |
PP
Still listening to the Sony whilst I'm posting, will be interesting to hear from Frogman, to my ears I'm hearing far more of the individual tonal colours of individual voices and the orchestral instruments appear far more realistic in tonal colour and timbre with this cartridge.
|
@halcro cc @frogman
Palladian/London Decca Reference/Sony XL
Great music. Beautiful.
In a nutshell firstly comparing the Palladian to the Decca, again ibuds, the Decca wins, most notably I can hear the chest and body of the female choristers, even individually. On the Palladian it sounds like they are singing from the top of their throat - no chest. The Decca more accurately conveys the full weight of the choristers and the room acoustics.
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....
|
@halcro cc @frogman Hi, apologies for tardiness, still waiting for the Baroque !! For the 1st comparison Palladian vs Sony I was quite shocked at what appears to me ( ibuds as usual ) considerably more resolution with the Sony. Is it my imagination or not - compared to the previous clip with the Sony XL88D - the Sony appears to have fleshed out and opened up, like it is still runnning in. If it has been on the shelf for a long period as the suspension limbers up you may have yet more to come. Agree with Frogmans observations, but I would add that the Palladian to my ears homogenises individual instruments and their harmonic structures and overtones merge together, whereas the Sony keeps the individual instruments clearly separated and the individual harmonic structures, overtones of each instrument etc remain attached to those respective instruments ( each retaining its character ). For me the Sony is vastly more transparent, reminding me of what I briefly heard some 30 years ago. Each instrument exists within its own space. The one area where I feel the Palladian MAY have the upper hand is in how it portrays subtle phrasing details. The little rhythmic pushes and pulls by the viola da gamba player at times seem to have just a little bit more energy and musical purpose with the Palladian. Along the same lines, the performance at times sounds ever so slightly slower with the Sony. All this is EXTREMELY subtle and I think it is probably a psychoacoustic effect of the Sony’s more fleshed out and richer tonal qualities. Often, a leaner tonal signature gives the illusion of greater speed. This reminds me of an experience many years ago, when upgrading a cartridge to one that was vastly more transparent I thought it was slow initially. This disappeared in short time, and pondering this I had a theory that because there was so much more information to absorb and process, the brain was tricked into believing the music was longer and slower - sort of like when Formula 1 drivers get into the zone and time slows. I do agree with Frogman there are psychoacoustical effects. I recall listening to a Mercury Living Presence recording on a Phillips reissue and simply did not recognise the performance even though I had the original Mercury pressing. I was convinced the performance on Phillips was ponderous and slow - further investigation revealed the records were identical, but the Phillips reissue had been remixed destroying the ebb and flow of the music. Thanks for posting the comparison - even via video there is much to hear. |
|
I’m glad you like the recording Frogman 😃 And ’technically’.....I didn’t call ’it’ Baroque 🤭 I merely commented that Dover (I believe) loves Baroque music....🤥😜 Hahaha.... I must say that I am quite taken aback with the excellence of the sound of the Sony. I’m thrilled to hear you say this 🥳 Although I didn’t doubt what I was hearing when I proclaimed it "my best and favourite cartridge"....I was a little nervous that you, coming at it from a slightly different angle....may discover some flaws which had eluded me 😥 What wonderful confirmation it is, that the YouTube videos are indeed capable of transmitting the ’Magic’ of such a subtle and ephemeral ’link’ in the audio chain. As a result there is a greater sense of separation of the instruments in the room’s acoustic while the Palladian seems to “crowd” them together. So impressed that you can actually define the "room’s acoustic"...Because that’s where this cartridge redefines (for me) the ability of the audio chain to bring one closer to ’the real thing’. And even I can hear that effect (somewhat diffused) in the videos 👂 I loved the sound of the Sony and I think you are justified in your excitement over it. I would love to hear it playing something more complex than this music to see how it handles a full orchestra for instance. A three way shootout between the Sony, Palladian and Decca? 😃 You’ve got it.....🤗 Thanks again for your ’feedback’ Frogman..... You’ve made me an even happIER man....💍 |
Lovely recording, Halcro; and thanks for obliging me with this comparison.
I must say that I am quite taken aback with the excellence of the sound of the Sony. While you have treated us to several excellent vintage cartridges, for me this is the first that I feel is in the same league as the Palladian. Outstanding! As always, my impressions have mostly to do with tonal and rhythmic characteristics. Listening was done on the usual Stax electrostatic headphones with tube driver.
The tonal characteristics of the Sony are wonderful with a midrange that is more realistically fleshed out and tonally complex than the Palladian which produces a sound that is generally too thin by comparison. Much more of the sound of the body of the harpsichord is evident with the Sony. With the Palladian the harpsichord sounds too thin and “tinkly” and the viola da gamba likewise too thin, almost threadbare, with an unrealistic nasal quality. The Palladian at first gives the impression of revealing a good sense of high frequency air for a greater sense of the room’s acoustic, but in comparison to the Sony this quality becomes an unnatural, squeaky clean, almost electronic sounding halo. With the Sony there is a greater sense of realistic timbre of the individual instruments while the Palladian seems to homogenize their individual and distinctive sounds. As a result there is a greater sense of separation of the instruments in the room’s acoustic while the Palladian seems to “crowd” them together.
The one area where I feel the Palladian MAY have the upper hand is in how it portrays subtle phrasing details. The little rhythmic pushes and pulls by the viola da gamba player at times seem to have just a little bit more energy and musical purpose with the Palladian. Along the same lines, the performance at times sounds ever so slightly slower with the Sony. All this is EXTREMELY subtle and I think it is probably a psychoacoustic effect of the Sony’s more fleshed out and richer tonal qualities. Often, a leaner tonal signature gives the illusion of greater speed.
I loved the sound of the Sony and I think you are justified in your excitement over it. I would love to hear it playing something more complex than this music to see how it handles a full orchestra for instance. A three way shootout between the Sony, Palladian and Decca? 😃
Thanks for another great comparison.
BTW, and forgive me for nitpicking over a musicological detail. This music is technically not Baroque, but rather from or in the style of music from the Renaissance (pre Baroque).
|
Thanks for the kind words Dramatictenor....😃
You have a ’good’ ear to appreciate the differences....
Some listeners cannot 👎
Welcome ’back’ to the hobby 🤗🎼
|
Halcro, you MOT, awesome service you've done by letting us get a listen of these different cartridges. I am ‘relatively’ new to the hobby (returned after tine away) and even on UTube, the difference berween these cartridges is so obvious. Thanks for this semi-scientific way that lets us all appreciate how significant a good transducer is. |
|
For those who have been following......after moving the AS Palladian LOMC Cartridge to the Copperhead Tonearm on the Raven AC-2 Belt-Drive.....I tried my SONY XL-88 LOMC CARTRIDGE in the SAEC WE-8000/ST arm around my Victor TT-101. Not expecting too much, I didn't bother removing it from its heavy FR-3 headshell 😴 And lo and behold....both the cartridge AND arm came 'alive'!! To me....hearing it in my room....it became the 'preferred cartridge' in my collection. A few weeks afterwards, I became aware that the rare (and expensive) DIAMOND CANTILEVERED version (the XL-88D) was for Auction on Japan Yahoo and because I was in love with the 'Standard' version...I was brave enough to bid 'high' for the XL-88D in SUCH FINE CONDITION..... I was so 'bowled over' by the sound of this cartridge in my system, that I started a THREAD devoted to it. SONY XL-88 LOMC CARTRIDGESONY XL-88D LOMC CARTRIDGE Diamond CantileverSONY XL-88 LOMC CARTRIDGESONY XL-88D LOMC CARTRIDGE Diamond CantileverDover Commented:- Hi Halcro - in my view, even on standard mac ibuds/Macair, it's quite easy to here significant differences between the XL88 & XL88D.
In some ways the 1st comparision was more revealing - the base line on the XL88D has much better timing and resolution. The XL88 by comparison has no timing at all on the base line, its all over the place. There is more information around the base line in paricular, harmonic fulness and detail. The high frequencies on the XL88D are crisper and appear to be significantly more transparent.
On the second recording again the timing is better, more transparent through the while range, by that I mean you can hear more body, harmonic completeness and sustain and decay of notes. Piano is much more purposeful on the XL88D ( and more real ).
As an aside, on your comparision of the Palladian and XL88 on the other thread the mid to top end of the XL88 sounded identical to the old Madrigal Carnegie on baroque music both of which I listen to a lot. The Carnegie was a Sony XLMC9 rebadged. Your comment about "vintage cartridges" is a little misnomer as Sony Soundtech designed these cartridges to be the ultimate analogue ( triple layer cantilevers of boron/carbon & aluminium, newly designed figure 8 coil layout and the Sony motor design was adopted by both Van den hul & Benz. The Early Van den hul MC1/Benz Ref/Carnegie are virtually identical.
I do note however the bass being still a little vague on the SAEC/XL88 on the baroque ( noticeable because the mid to top end is so good ) and would encourage you to find a lighter more rigid headshell - these Sony's are medium compliance and their suspensions are not robust. Again I believe the Cobra tonearm would provide the same improvements with the Sony XL's as you experienced with the Palladian over the SAEC.
I know from personal experience the Sony XL88D performed extremely well on the Dynavector tonearm I own, significantly better than on the SAEC 407/23 used on the same turntable.
Finally, congrats on the acquisition of the XL88D, one day it will be no more, but at least you have had the pleasure of hearing it for a while, a very special cartridge.
Frogman Commented:- First, I agree entirely with Dover’s excellent observations re the differences between the sound of the two Sony cartridges. I might describe the differences heard somewhat differently, but I think that we are hearing the same things. For instance, his observation of the superior “timing” of the 88D, I would describe as the standard 88 having comparatively wooly bass with a sense of uncontrolled overhang. This causes it to have inferior pitch definition and clarity of bass notes compared to the 88D. Good pitch definition and clarity are key aspects of good musical timing. A rather wordy description of what Dover later described succinctly as more “articulate”. In all, I agree with his observations re the 88D’s superior clarity and, most important for me, superior “harmonic completeness”; the timbre of instruments, saxophone and trumpet in particular, sound closer to real.
Apologies if I have missed commentary on this point, but I think that in the quest for determining what the absolute “best” cantilever material is, not enough has been made of the fact that the cantilever material that is best for one cartridge may not be the best choice for another cartridge that uses a different motor and a different housing; all which contribute to the overall sonic signature of the cartridge as determined by the designer’s goals. Different motors offer different levels of resolution and have certain general tonal signatures just as different cartridge housings have different sonic signatures due to their particular resonance characteristics. I am certainly no expert on phono cartridges and my experience with them is certainly very limited compared to the OP’s and many here, but looking at the Sony I see a cartridge with a rather large and boxy housing constructed largely of plastic. Just an observation not meant as a criticism; clearly it is a great cartridge. To my simplistic way of thinking it would be no surprise that a cartridge with a housing that APPEARS to be less rigid and possibly more resonant than one which is more compact and rigid would benefit from a diamond cantilever with its higher degree of rigidity. The same very rigid cantilever/stylus on a cartridge with a motor and/or housing which may have inherently leaner sonic characteristics may not be the best choice for a particular cartridge designer’s goals.
Congrats on your new cartridge, Halcro; would love to hear a comparison of the 88D and the Palladian playing acoustic (orchestral?) music. Thanks for another interesting thread. |
|
|
|
Dear Raul,
**** fun is fun and this is the thread target.****
I don’t think so. To suggest that there is no other value than fun to this thread is not fair nor accurate. With respect, it appears that you did not read all that has been written here. Lewm and Noromance have done a fine job of addressing some of your concerns. Some further thoughts:
++++ see if any of you can distinguish the differences between some of my vintage (and modern) cartridges. ++++
THAT is the “thread target” as stated by our OP. Sure, it is fun. Our hobby should be fun and we should embrace that aspect of it. We should all try it some time.
^^^^ the exercise can have value as “a starting point”; especially in the absence of the availability of cartridges to actually try oneself ^^^^
^^^^ Acknowledging the limitations of listening to music this way,^^^^
I prefaced most of what I wrote with the above comment. We have acknowledged the limitations of this methodology. Moreover, and at least speaking for myself, I have never written that any one cartridge is the “best”. In comparison to another cartridge and acknowledging the limitations one cartridge shows itself to be better than the other according to MY sonic priorities and based on what I hear. Nothing more, nothing less. Trying to establish which is the Universal “best” is futile and I don’t believe that you can determine that either. Perhaps you can for yourself and in the context of your sound system which is very different from mine or someone else’s. For instance, I happen to believe, based on my experience, that good tube amplification gets closer to the sound of live music IN CERTAIN SPECIFIC SONIC AREAS that are sonic priorities for me than even the best SS gear. I know you don’t agree with this, but the point is that in the context of such different systems the “best” in one may very well not be the best in the other.
My personal experience here, in my own systems and others’ has been that there are certain and specific sonic traits inherent in each cartridge that are consistent no matter the tonearm, turntable, mat, etc. used. For instance, each and every single time that I have heard a Shure cartridge in any system, mine or otherwise, I have heard a certain sonic character that I simply don’t like. You correctly point out that those other variables may well tilt the balance in favor of a particular cartridge in the context of another turntable set-up or overall system.
I would be interested in knowing what you yourself hear in some of these comparisons. Have some fun and feel free to “go in deep”.
Regards.
|
Dear @noromance : " come across a better combination... "
That it's: " combination " not isolated cartridge test and gradinig it.
"""
selected the best combination of arm/table to enable each cartridge to perform at its best.... """
When we own several tonearms, headshells and TTs I know by first hand experiences that " at its best " exist but because exist too almost endless combinations for each cartridge well the task needs several months to do it only for one or two cartridges and only if you have a precise accurate repeatable test overall proccess.
Anyway I really appreciated your gentle wise answers. Just follow with the fun !
R.
|
Raul. We know all this. We accept the experiment as it is. Let’s call it a fun and slightly illogical and maybe flawed hueristic methodology. We trust that Halcro has selected the best combination of arm/table to enable each cartridge to perform at its best. And if we come across a better combination, he invokes it and we move on from there.
|
Dear @frogman : In good shape. Don't you think that could be more appropiated to " talk "/grade not about cartridges but about two analog rigs?
In your posts and the other gentleamans ones always refered that this cartridge is better than the " other ", Denon, Shure, Sony or whatever.
If you think that it's ok to follow stating " this cartridge " and the " other cartridge " then I would like to understand how you aisle the cartridge it self from the analog rig is surrounded when those analog rigs are way way different and where the cartridge overall set-up: alignment, VTA/SRA, AZ, VTF and the like were fixed by Halcro self music/sound priorities and even that SPL was not matched?
It has to be a coherent explanation to talk of cartridges instead analog rigs. I know that you have a lot of fun with but I just " wonder " about because all of you are mature audiophiles and music lovers.
Thank's in advance,
R. |
Dear @lewm : Even tthat all here is about of fun you have to think that cartridge quality performance is " disturbed " by " thousands " of different kind of " parameters/conditions ".
In the example you posted:
one TT is BD and the other in a DD one, both arm boards different, both TT plynth different, both TT platter surface in touch with the LP surface different, both tonearms with different effective length and effective mass, both tonearms with different wiring, one tonearm with removable headshell and the other with out it, different resonance frequency in both tonearms, different tracking error too and other additional " disturbing " parameters.
When things are so different it's ovbious that exist differences in the overall performance.
Anyway, my target was and is not to go in deep about and as I said before: fun is fun and this is the thread target.
R. |
Abracadabra!!!
Quick catch up to you guys:
For the sake of expediency, I’ll just say that neither the Shure V15/III nor Denon 103R impressed very much. If forced to choose, I would choose the Denon. I just don’t like the Shure “sound”. Too dry and bleached out; too “gray” sounding for me. The Denon (I owned one) is a little juicier sounding. Too juicy, but I prefer to go in that direction instead of the opposite.
I generally agree with the very good comments about the Sony vs the AS, but I’m not prepared to make definite conclusions. I agree there is a sense of more drive with the Sony. However, it could be due to the Victor’s DD. For that reason alone I don’t think that there is proof of superiority in that department. Probably as important, I think, is that the volume level of the Sony clip is slightly higher than that of the AS. That alone could sway one’s impression of “drive”. We are comparing two very good cartridges and perhaps Halcro can use an SPL meter going forward for setting volume levels and for more fair comparisons. What I like about the Sony is that one hears tonalities with more “meat on the bone” which would be a benefit in an overall leaner sounding system. On the previous doubled up clip that noromance referred to as “tricky”, one of my impressions of the Sony was that the lower octaves were too thick. I heard it on my end as a little muddy and indistinct. This I think contributes to the “more meat on the bones” impression on the Prokofiev (great recording) which, combined with the POSSIBLE greater rhythmic drive, gives the Sony more of what Halcro often refers to as more “magic”.
On the plus side for the AS, while the Sony makes the orchestra sound like it was recorded in a rich, reverberant hall with lots of wood, the AS sounds like the orchestra is in a more modern hall. A little leaner, less grunt in the lower winds and strings. I think there is greater tonal truthfulness and refinement with the Palladian and, as noromance points out, more overall fine detail. Listen to the entrance of the English horn @ 0:26. With the Sony it sounds like the EH enters. With the AS I can hear that it is English Horn AND oboe. However, as a colleague often says: “no one ever gets fired for bad sound”. Meaning: rhythm and timing is No.1. In this example and comparison, and assuming I am wrong about the effect of the slightly lower volume with the AS, the Sony wins.
Probably the toughest comparison yet. I generally agree with your comments. I would also think that in an all SS system like Halcro’s I might prefer the Sony. In an all tube system, I would probably prefer the AS.
Now, where did that rabbit go? 😊
|
Raul, I think the group (of which I cannot count myself a member, since I have offered no SQ opinions so far) has acknowledged the effect of tonearm and headshell (and tacitly, the turntable); the Palladian was run on both the SAEC/Victor and then on the Copperhead/Raven, and the group preferred the latter. As for me, my computer speakers are lousy, so I dare not think I can judge at all. Nothing sounds really good at my end.
|
Dear @halcro and Magicians : and I mean it in good shape. I know that all of you are really getting big fun in this cartridge party, good and please continue with.
For me is not very atractive this kind of " fest ". Anyway I wonder if this is a true cartridge " game " or something else and I have a question for all the Magicians:
how any one of you can separate the cartridge quality performance from the headshell or tonearm or TT or arm board where @halcro mounted each cartridge? I know for sure I can't do it especially for grading each cartridge quality level performance against others and if we add our each music/sounds preferences things goes more complicated for me. Btw the OP title is: " hear my cartridges ".
I know I can do it when everything is the same for each cartridge and even with is not an easy task.
In the other side I never had patience for shoot-outs through headphones maybe because I'm accustom to live room/system.
I ask my self : It's a valuable excercise for the " magicians " that can't validate it?
Anyway and as I said this post is in good shape so go a head gentlemans ! ! ! fun is fun no matter what.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
|
😃
However.......
Don't forget that we all preferred the Palladian in the Copperhead on the Raven AC-2 Belt-Drive to its performance in the WE-8000/ST on the Victor Direct Drive.......
Curiouser and curiouser......🤔🥴
|
Interesting that you brought up the ’powering through the stylus drag’ aspect of the DD. It’s both the very reason I run idlers and why I think you’re not hearing the best the LDR has to offer. (!) Speaking of 40 years. One of my Deccas is 35 years old and sounds excellent.
Wonderful Prokofiev. I’m listening to Symphony No.7 thanks to you!
|
I agree with you Noromance...👍 There is more drive and menace in what I hear from it. Exactly what I hear 'in-situ'... There seems to be more excitement, tension and anticipation with the Sony. More like 'The Real Thing'.... The notes seem to start faster and stop instantly and there is more clarity and definition in all the instruments when a loud crescendo (or 'blast') in the Prokofiev occurs.... I can't help but wonder if these attributes are more a symptom of the Victor's Direct Drive being able to 'power' through the heavily modulated grooves without being affected by 'stylus drag'...? Regardless.....I think the performance of the 40 year-old Sony XL-88 LOMC against one of the best current 'Uber' cartridges, proves that there have been little 'technological' advances since the 'Golden Age' of Analogue...🤗 |
I prefer the Sony. There is more drive and menace in what I hear from it. Piccolo and tympani are clearer and easier to follow. The AS sounds cluttered and almost confused at times, even though it sounds more detailed.
|
I’ve heard the $25,000 Doehmann turntable with the minus K platform built in, and I think it is one of the best if not the best belt drive turntable I have ever heard. For the money, it’s got to be THE best.
If we got into that discussion of arm pods again it would divert this thread from its beautiful path, and I don’t want to be responsible for doing that. I have no theoretical beef with your current set up.
Occasionally, but not regularly, I listen to your posted recordings, and then I wait to see whether I can agree with the various critiques thereof by following the thread. That’s as far as I have gone. Frogman et al do a great job.
|
Well...none of the feedback I've received privately, has been as overwhelming as that for the Sony XL-88..... Particularly playing the Vivaldi 😃 The requests have been...to hear it against the AS PALLADIAN which is a $10,000 current-model LOMC. The SONY XL-88 is a 40 year-old LOMC with a highish compliance of 20x10-6cm/Dyne. To find a really good one for less than $1,000.00 is not difficult. Putting it in the heavy Fidelity Research FR-S3 headshell on the SAEC WE-8000/ST Tonearm has improved its performance significantly I believe Dover 😃 VINTAGE SONY XL-88 LOMC Cartridge AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge |
Just a word about the 'Copernican Theory' Lew...... You're right that it wasn't about whether the tonearm was more important than the turntable..... What I proposed, was that the 'Platter' revolved around the 'Tonearm' 🤔 In other words...the Tonearm needed to be 'anchored' to a rigid, immovable base, disconnected from the noises and movements of the motor/s, platter and plinth. Very much like the arm of the CUTTING LATHE which is treated like 'The Sun' with the 'Earth' (the Platter) very much secondary to the 'Sun'. Your contention (and that of some other erstwhile contributors to that Thread) was that unless the Tonearm was rigidly CONNECTED directly to the platter bearing....it was impossible to maintain the physical relationship (Spindle to Pivot distance) or prevent differential movement between Platter and Arm. Here is a video of MARK DOEHMANN designer of the famous Continuum Caliburn and Criterion Turntables and also the Doehmann Helix 1 and Helix 2 Turntables. Listen at the 33 second mark of the video where he emphasises the signal defining difference between his turntables and all others..... The 'disconnection' of the armboard from the platter bearing, motor/s and chassis. This man is a Turntable and Tonearm Designer.... He is NOT an amplifier or cartridge designer 😝, nor a 'punter' like the rest of us, free to speculate and 'invent' theories without ever having to prove ourselves...? In any case....as far as I know....I'm the only one amongst all the 'naysayers' who actually has a turntable with outboard armpods directly alongside a conventional one without.....and I can hear the differences. Hopefully you may also be able to, via the Youtube Videos? |
I didn't know you were a 'Lurker' Lew...?😃 It would be nice to hear your thoughts on some of the comparisons? It would also be great to hear from Dover on a more regular basis...? He seems to have as refined a 'hearing' as Frogman 🧐 Funny you should mention 'Sullivans Cove' single malt whiskey.... At the 2017 Munich HES....Dietrich Brakemeier (Dertonarm) of ACOUSTICAL SYSTEMS kindly provided me with a Press Pass which allowed me free entry every day, but more importantly....access the day before the Show was opened to the public 😝 To thank him for this, before I left Sydney, I asked him if I could bring him anything from 'Down Under' and he requested a bottle of 'Sullivans Cove'. Never having heard of it myself, I chased around all the bottle shops, even the speciality 'Whiskey Only' stores....and not one of them had a bottle. So I Emailed the makers in Tasmania who informed me that 99% of all their production was exported and if I wanted a bottle, it would take two weeks and cost $650.....😱 I took Dietrich a nice bottle of Aussie red wine instead 🤗 So the answer to your question Lew...is 'no'....I haven't tasted 'Sullivans Cove' and don't expect to.....🤯 |
I love reading this thread, because you guys are so nice to each other, and the tone is so genteel. Keep it up. While you were talking about single malt scotch, I was reminded of my dear friend who is also an Aussie. Three of us, my friend Ian from Melbourne and another friend who is also a retired scientist from my area here in Washington, DC, did a road trip through the American south last fall and had a great time. During that trip, we sampled (ex-Australia) "Sullivans Cove", the one that was voted world's best on one or two occasions. Have you tasted that one, Henry? I thought it was very good but not hands down better than, say, 25-year old Macallam's.
I might note here that the Copernican Theory as expounded by Henry was never about whether the tonearm was more or less important than the turntable; it was about outboard arm pods vs mounting the arm rigidly to the turntable. In the end, I thought we all agreed that a massive pod sitting on the same shelf with the turntable (a la Henry's set up) works about as well as a rigid link. Over the course of time and bluster, Henry and I moved off our original intransigent and opposing positions and found some middle ground.
|
|
Whilst I haven't given up hope that Frogman will find the time to write his verdict on the Denon vs Shure 'Shootout'.....here are two videos which don't need any comparisons 🤩 Before I started this Thread.....I never did direct cartridge comparisons nor 'Shootouts' 😃 Out of the 80+ cartridges I have directly heard in my system.....it has been relatively easy for me to hear (almost) instantly which ones 'did it👍 and which 'didn't'👎 Which ones had the 'Magic'🎉 and which didn't 💣 That's why I'm amazed (and sometimes bewildered) by Frogman's exacting analyses and insights. Nevertheless.....I can still happily listen to any one of my 40+ 'selected' cartridges without consciously bewailing its deficiencies or comparing it to my others. And that's the main point I'm trying to make with this Thread...... There are soooo many cartridges out there that can truly perform 'Magic' (in a GOOD arm) that I don't believe anyone needs to spend the outrageous sums currently being asked for the 'Uber' High-End cartridges. I don't care if it's MM, MI, or MC.....there are hundreds of 'vintage' ones available every day for less than $1,000 that I've proven, can sound better than many current models selling for up to ten times more. And I've heard for myself....that with MM cartridges in particular, no modern ones can match the quality and 'Magic' created by the engineers working in 'The Golden Age' of analogue (70s-80s). Just pick a vintage cartridge of any type, and listen to it on various musical genres. If you really like it.....relax and enjoy. How many 'degrees' of 'goodness' does one need. As an example....here is a vintage Sony XL-88 LOMC cartridge from my collection, which is NOT amongst my top 10 favourites. However, that doesn't prevent me from enjoying it immensely 🤗 SONY XL-88 LOMC CartridgeSONY XL-88 LOMC Cartridge |
