Hear my Cartridges....🎶

I must be missing something; I’m a simple man 😔.  Are we listening to Grace or to Shure carts?  

Actually, don’t tell me...yet 🤔

Could you tell which one is lighter or darker in colour ? Is boron darker ?

Hi Harold,
The Glanz MFG-610LX is darker than most of my Beryllium cantilevers....but not as dark as most of my Boron ones 🧐
So I don't think colour (in this case) is an infallible indicator.....
Regards

Wonderful music and Stern sounds great!

“any perceptible differences”?  Couldn’t be more obvious.  Amazing what a difference different cantilever material makes.

Beryllium cantilever sounds way too dry and almost totally lacking natural instrumental color.  Timbres sound dry and bleached out.  Strange piano sound.  Violin sound is better, but still too wiry and thin in the highest register.

Ruby sounds much more natural with just a touch of appropriate juiciness and natural color in the violin’s timbre.  Piano sounds MUCH more realistic and weightier.  

Complicating matters however is that “dry with slightly bleached out timbre” is a sound that I associate with some Columbia “Six Eyes”.  So, is the berillium being more honest about what is on the record while the Ruby is adding a bit of juice?  Regardless, the Ruby sounds much more like real.  Neither tracks flawlessly.

I agree with you Frogman....
And it's something I didn't expect as I generally prefer beryllium cantilevers...🤔

And my apologies for messing up the cartridge names....
Of course they are the GRACE LEVEL II/Beryllium and GRACE LEVEL II/Ruby.
Not SHURES.........
Trouble is, I can't now edit the Post to correct the titles.
I've done it on the YouTube videos though.

Thanks again for the comments...

Henry, thanks for illustrating the colour subject. It seems to me that your "later stock" GLANZ MFG 610LX has a tube boron cantilever likewise does mine from mid eighties and beryllium was probably never used. As the original GLANZ MFG 61 is long ago discontinued the MFG 610LX is "the most prestige model among the GLANZ MF cartridges" and it does sound excellent as I´m currently revisiting my sample.
Many audiophiles praise the Grace F-9 Ruby as the best sounding of the F-9 series, I have read over the years in many Hi-Fi forums...

You’re welcome Harold.
I think you’re probably right, except it’s a ‘hollow’ tube....and I don’t recall seeing a hollow boron tube before?

The cartridges in the shoot-out above are NOT F-9 Graces.
They are F-8 Level II....
Different animals altogether. Two to three times the price of an F-9 Ruby 🤪

Henry, you are right. I meant "hollow" tube. Both my sample from mid eighties and your "later" stock have hollow tube boron cantilevers. Seems to me that they are exactly the same cartridges, and therefore namely the MFG-610LX may very well be the finest sounding cartridge GLANZ ever produced. For me there´s no mystery anymore. Truly great find.
As for the Grace, the more expensive models usually are better in sound quality... like the Grace F-14 series :__ )

@harold-not-the-barrel
The discussion on Glanz has inspired me to pop my Glanz MFG61 back in the system. I have completed some subtle upgrades to my system in the past year. A couple of months ago I managed to wipe out my Koetsu Black Goldline which I was using on an FR64S/B60 for non critical listening.
Well, the Glanz MFG61 has left the koetsu well and truly dead - more refined, more linear to use Frogmans language), quicker and more transparent. It gets much closer to my reference Dynavector Nova 13D in spectral balance and accuracy.

The MFG61 has different specs to the 610LX - different compliance, better channel separation, and finer stylus profile. From Halcro’s earlier posting, not withstanding whats lost in translation ( to video/digital ), my impression is that the 61 sounds much more refined and less course than the 610LX.

PS
Halcro - thanks for the Decca post for Frogman and I - I have been a bit busy to respond - the music was great.

Dover, does your MFG 61 have a rod boron cantilever unlike MFG 610LX ´s hollow tube boron ? And what´s the compliance, is it much higher ? You mean its frequency response is flatter ?
The finer stylus shape of MFG 61 does make a difference indeed. And all these factors together make a difference for sure. But what is the end result, in different TT/TA combos really matters. In your system the MFG 61 wins, so good for you.
Your reference is Dynavector Nova 13D, have you tried the new Nova 17D3 ?

My Glanz MFG61 has the same cantilever as in Chaksters picture in the Glanz thread. Cant tell whether it is hollow or not. Compliance of MFG61 is 25x10(-6) @10hz,.  610LX is 10x10(-6)@100hz. You cant accurately compare these, but the likely compliance of the 610LX @10hz is probably around 15-20 - slightly lower than the 61. Channel separation on the MFG61 is 25db@1khz, MFG610LX is 23db@1khz.

No such cartridge as the Nova 17D3. The Karat Nova 13D was only produced in a small run ~40 years ago - mine has been rebuilt/upgraded by Dynavector Japan several times - its a one off. It's resolution exceeds both my Ikeda Kiwame & Garrott Bros Decca Gold with Microscanner.
If I was to replace the Karat Nova 13D it would have to be the XV1T.

Seems to me that Chak´s sample has a rod cantilever. I was surprised when I firstly saw that huge glue drop on the cantilever, I had never seen anything like that before. Does your sample also have a big glue drop ? Why it´s so big I´m not quite sure of its purpose ? It just adds stylus effective tip mass. I can´t see any traces of glue in my MFG 610LX.
If the 61 has a solid rod cantilever then 610LX´s stylus/cantilever ass´y is lighter and therefore a more sophisticated design. Its compliance is 45 (static)/10 (dynamic 100 Hz) according to the manual. As we know, all these small differences could make a big difference, especially in these higher quality performance levels.
How do they compare to each other in sound quality is another thing, in different systems.
Some Dynavector fans prefer the new Nova 17D3, others the XV1-t. Very interesting.

Dover, I just noticed that there´s a new kid in town: the Karat 17DX
Interesting review here:
https://totallywired.nz/analogue/the-dynavector-karat-dv17dx-moving-coil-cartridge/
"A ruler flat frequency from 100 Hz to 30 kHz under +/- 0.5 dB" and right up to 100 kHz, and that very short and extremely rigid cantilever.
From solely a technical point of view the latest Karat 17D is a very interesting cartridge design indeed... and quite a tempting one ...

The inevitable 'Shootout'.......
The music and performer may be 'corny' to some, but the recording on this album does some extraordinary things in my Living Room which the video comes nowhere near conveying...☹️
The sound has incredible depth and height seeming to 'bend' around the room and enveloping the space like 4-Channel tried to...

GRACE LEVEL II/Ruby

AS PALLADIAN LOMC

Unabashed ear-candy. Problem is that there is too much artificial flavoring and not enough real fruit juice in this candy. For me, this music is less “corny” than it is bad sounding. Early digital all the way. Spatially it probably sounds incredible on your system; it is very impressive over my Stax in that respect. But, the ubiquitous (for the time) weird high frequency artifacts that seemed to accompany the upper mids and highs of early digital recording/mastering are very obvious; like a strange halo that rides above the vocals and high frequency sounds. Classic ‘80s LA studio recording sonic aesthetic.

Having said all that and “reading (hearing) between the lines” there are differences heard between the two cartridges that make, for me and once again, the Palladian the clear winner. At first, the Grace may seem to be even more impressive in the spatial/soundstaging department. I think that at least some of that is due to the fact that the Grace is more generous in the bass to lower mid range and adds body to the sound. However, this range sounds “plummy”; a little too thick. The Palladian’s bass is leaner but better controlled and the suggestion is there that it probably goes a bit lower than the Grace. The Palladian sounds leaner overall, but the sound seems better organized if on a somewhat smaller or less voluminous scale.

Probably less so than most MMs (not the Victors) compared so far the Grace’s midrange still has what I hear as a slightly bleached out tonal character. A little gray sounding with a subtle quality that I would describe as a soft graininess. The Palladian’s sound in this range sounds more lucid and complete. Imagine looking at a picture in a newspaper; one can see the dots in the images. With the Grace one can see (hear) dots in the mids and highs. The Palladian seems to pack more dots into the same space (time) for a more complete sense of timbre and texture.  The advantage of this is that the sound of instruments is more complete and recognized more easily. When the brass first plays, not only did I first have to process whether it was really the sound of brass and not a synth, but I could not hear as clearly that it wasn’t only trumpets, but trombones as well.  The Palladian made all this immediately more obvious.

On the other hand, the Grace sounds bigger, more robust and more powerful in the bass for a potentially more “impressive” sonic image. This may appeal to some listeners more and may also be a more suitable match in certain systems. Both sound great and considering the price difference the Grace is pretty amazing. However, this recording is so heavily processed that I’m not sure what any of this proves as far as ranking one as “better” than the other. Personally, I would love to hear the two cartridges playing something like the Stravinsky “Firebird”.

Thanks for the comparison, Halcro.

Edit:

With the Grace, “when the brass first plays, not only did I first have to process whether it was really the sound of brass and not a synth, but I could not hear as clearly that it wasn’t only trumpets, but trombones as well.  The Palladian made all this immediately more obvious. “

Unabashed ear-candy

Haha....soooo right 🥳
Thanks again for the wonderfully detailed commentary Frogman.
I won't comment until you hear a 'proper' test...🧐

Personally, I would love to hear the two cartridges playing something like the Stravinsky “Firebird”.

Rather than repeating an album....I think I might have your 'number' Frogman, when it comes to musical tastes......🤞

GRACE LEVEL II/Ruby 

AS PALLADIAN LOMC

Thanks for indulging me, Halcro. Unfortunately, it appears that “This video contains content from SME who has blocked it in your (my) country on copyright grounds” ☹️

What a bummer......💩
YouTube advised me that due to copyright issues it was blocked in some countries but normally it lists the countries.
This time it didn't......
And I'm sure you would have like it Frogman.....Final movement of Copland/Dance Symphony on RCA Victor 👅
Oh well...we'll have to 'settle' for some more Stravinsky.....

GRACE LEVEL II/Ruby 

AS PALLADIAN LOMC 

Can’t have too much Stravinsky. Fantastic composer with a VERY personal musical language.

A strong hint of the differences between the cartridges can be heard even before the music starts. The tonal character and apparent speed of the record’s surface noise is obviously different with each cartridge. With the Palladian it is sharper, more incisive and faster. With the Grace it sounds a little thicker; rounder and covered with less high frequency content and not as incisive. The differences are subtle, but they are there.

The effect on the music is the same. With the Grace there is less high frequency detail so the timbre of different instruments is homogenized. One hears less of each instrument’s distinctive timbre; less natural tonal color. Partly as a result of this the timbre of instruments seem to have more body with the Grace, but it is mostly the absence of high frequency detail that highlights the midrange and lows. Compared to the Palladian the Grace sounds a little too thick through the lower midrange and bass ranges.

With the Palladian not only does the flute in the openimg sound slightly more appropriately metallic, but the player’s phrasing sounds a little more energetic. When the cellos and basses enter with the repeated downbeats at 0:25, with the Grace those downbeats sound thicker and borderline muddy by comparison to the Palladian. Likewise, in the wonderful waltz at 2:08 the bass clarinet downbeats sound too warm and thick with less pitch definition than with the Palladian. Overall, with the Grace there is a subtle sense of the music being played just slightly slower and less energetically. There is also less sense of air and hf extension.

All very subtle differences, but the Palladian simply sounds closer to the sound of the real thing; particularly in the areas of timbre realism.
The Grace sounds great, but the Palladian is pretty special to my ears.

Thanks, Halcro.

Strangely enough.....in the reality of my listening room....the "unabashed ear-candy" of Julio Iglesias immediately revealed the differences between the two cartridges.
And not in a subtle way......
The Palladian doubled the 'air envelope' within my room pushing the sound higher, wider and deeper whilst at the same time, separating the vocals and digitally manipulated instrumentals into some semblance of three-dimensionality.
The background noise-floor was also lowered.
A pity none of this is perceivable on the video...

The Stravinsky on the other hand, was far more subtle and difficult for me to distinguish the differences.
That's why we need YOU Frogman....😜

Thanks again.

Thank you Frogman, we really appreciate your input. Do you have your own samples of Palladian and DLR and what is your turntable ?

Hi Harold, no I do not have my own samples of either. My comments are strictly in reference to what I hear from the comparisons here. I am well aware of the limitations inherent in doing so this way, but interesting to me nonetheless. My turntable is a VPI TNT6 with Super Platter (string drive), double motor flywheel, SDS controller, ET2 (high pressure manifold) tonearm. Regards.

Your comparisons are interesting to us as well. That TT/TA combo is a great tool for evaluating these two super cartridges, I´d assume that you may try them some day soon... unless you have better already.
So yes I would be interested to hear what is the best cartridge that you have listened in your system so far ?

Best IN MY SYSTEM was probably a VDH Colibri loaned by a friend.  PITA to set up properly and, IMO, definitely tubes friendly.  I like VDH cartridges.  On my ET2, the best that I have owned is probably a tie between my Monster Sigma Genesis 2000 (ZYX) which is extremely synergistic with the ET2 and my Decca London Gold which I love but is VERY temperamental with noise issues.  

frogman

... the best that I have owned is probably a tie between my Monster Sigma Genesis 2000 ...

That's a fantastic cartridge and has long been one of my favorites. I had mine retipped at Soundsmith and they did a great job.

Good to know about your experience with Soundsmith and the 2000, Cleeds as mine will need retipping soon. Thanks!  Did you keep the original cantilever or did you replace with ruby or other?  It is a great cartridge as you say.

frogman

Did you keep the original cantilever or did you replace with ruby or other?

Soundsmith recommended a boron cantilever with contact line stylus, and I went with that recommendation.

Makes sense; original is boron.

The first Shure cartridge I owned, was the little known ML140HE. recommended by a US audio buddy.....
In what was a cheap and unassuming plastic body....Shure had armed the ML140HE with a nude Line-Contact stylus on a THIN WALLED HOLLOW BERYLLIUM CANTILEVER 🤯
My next experience with a Shure, was the ubiquitous V15/III which I actually bought, so I could transplant a JICO SAS STYLUS therein.
This to me, sounded far better than the original V15/III stylus.

Frogman does not like Shure cartridges..... but I doubt he has heard the ML140HE? 🤔

SHURE ML140HE 

SHURE V15/III/SAS 

Frogman and Cleeds, thanks for your input. I´ve known the MC Sigma Genesis 2000 and its reputation for thirty years and it´s a bargain as the prices for used are quite low today. A Colibri is another superb cart to try in my system but in this price range I´ll go for a Soundsmith FC.
A thin walled hollow beryllium cantilever has a very low moving mass, that ML140HE´s is probably 0.20 mg. Is the HE referring to hyper elliptical stylus btw ? Anyway, interesting to hear the statements about ...

More detailed comments forthcoming, but Princi and I are in complete agreement; mic overload and all.  

Is the HE referring to hyper elliptical stylus btw ?

I think you might be right.....
I thought the ML could stand for 'MicroLine'...but the specs call it hyper-elliptical.
Imagine back then....we had the technology to produce, not only solid beryllium but also HOLLOW beryllium cantilevers.
They could also produce hollow boron and titanium cantilevers.
These days, the only HOLLOW they can do is aluminium.
For boron, sapphire, ruby, diamond....solid is the only choice.

BTW....the SAS stylus for the V15/III is on a solid boron cantilever.

Yes indeed in the glorious 80´s we had hollow beryllium cantilevers with very low moving mass. The finest of SHURE was ULTRA 500´s 0.165 mg and ULTRA 400´s 0.195 mg which is an improved version of the ML140HE.

Found this:
An estimated list of Shure cartridge rankings, best first, rankings based on tip moving mass and trackability, magnetic core type and stylus shape:

1. Ultra 500 (V15 Type V-MR modified for lower moving tip mass of 0.165mg)
2. V15 Type V-MR, Ultra VST-V (as per Type V, MR tip)
3. V15 Type V (HE tip, beryllium tube cantilever, tip mass 0.17mg)
4. V15 Type V-G (as per Type V, conical tip)
5. V15VxMR (similar trackability, beryllium tube cantilever and MR tip shape to V15 Type V-MR, but non-laminated core, so eddy currents in the core will mean a less-flat high frequency response, tip mass 0.17mg)
6. Ultra 400 (ML140HE body with MR tip, laminated core, beryllium tube cantilever, tip mass 0.19mg)
7. ML140HE (laminated core, beryllium tube cantilever, HE tip)
8. VST-III, V15 Pro/S, Realistic V15-RS (same body as V15VxMR, HE tip, beryllium tube stylus)
   
9. V15 Type IV-MR (the MR tip was a later upgrade for the Type IV stylus)
10. V15 Type IV (laminated core, telescopic aluminium tube cantilever with beryllium stub, HE tip, tip mass 0.29mg)
11. V15 Type IV-G (as per Type IV except with conical tip)
12. Ultra 300 (same body as Ultra 400, ML140HE and ML120HE, telescopic aluminium tube cantilever, MR tip, tip mass 0.3mg)
13. ML120HE (laminated core, telescopic aluminium tube cantilever, HE tip)
14. V15 Type III-MR (as per Type III, but later upgraded with MR tip stylus)
15. V15 Type III-HE (as per Type III, but later upgraded with HE tip stylus)
16. V15 Type III (laminated core, aluminium tube cantilever with beryllium stub, elliptical tip, tip mass 0.33mg)
17. V15 Type III-G (as per Type III, but with conical stylus)

All of the above cartridges, except for the Type III models, have Shure’s Dynamic Stabiliser brush, which damps tonearm/cartridge resonance, short circuits record static electricity to ground, and removes dust from ahead of the stylus.

All in all, it´s just such a pity that Shure discontinued their better models.

All of the above cartridges, except for the Type III models, have Shure’s Dynamic Stabiliser brush, which damps tonearm/cartridge resonance, short circuits record static electricity to ground, and removes dust from ahead of the stylus. 

I preferred both my V15vxmr & V15vmr with a brazillian and a dab of superglue on the stylus holder - as used in my Eminent Technology ET2. Accurate tonearm set up, properly grounded TT & clean records obviate the need for heath robinson type solutions.
 

I preferred both my V15vxmr & V15vmr with a brazillian and a dab of superglue on the stylus holder - as used in my Eminent Technology ET2. Accurate tonearm set up, properly grounded TT & clean records obviate the need for heath robinson type solutions.

I agree.....
The Dynamic Stabiliser also acts as a stylus protector so I just keep it in the fully 'up' position when playing a disc.

More detailed comments forthcoming, but Princi and I are in complete agreement;

Hahaha........😂

Thanks for that Shure 'Ranking Chart' Harold......
Very useful 👍

Thanks to Harold's Shure Cartridge Ranking Guide (above).....I managed to find a SHURE ULTRA 500 in mint condition with its MICRO RIDGE STYLUS still sharp and shiny 🤗
Unfortunately for the last month, one of my Halcro DM-58 Monoblocks has been in Adelaide (with its maker) having a faulty capacitor in one of the protection circuits replaced so I have only been able to listen through headphones or to mono records on one speaker 😢
The ULTRA 500 is certainly a step-up from the rather flimsy plastic construction of both the ML140 HE and V15/III.
So with a TRIPLE-COMPLEMENT of Shures......does one hear what one pays for.....?
Hopefully Frogman and Harold won't let us down with their contributions....🧐

SHURE V15/III/SAS

SHURE ML140HE

SHURE ULTRA 500 

Hi Halcro
for me on my cheapo ear iPhone plugs -

Shure V15/III/SAS - full bodied but coloured sound

Shure Ml140HE - slightly recessed in the vocals, clangy in the upper mid area

Shure Ultra 500 - the least coloured by far of the three, the balance across the frquency spectrum far more even, and more resolution. On crescendos this cartridge holds that balance. This is significantly better than the other two to my ears, more open, more balanced and less coloured.

If you really want to hear the Ultra 500 at its best you need to buy yourself an Eminent Technology ET2, a significant gain in performance cf the Dynavector/FR64 to be sure - I own all 3.

I'm not convinced your lovely dog is a Linda Rondstadt fan though.

Thanks for the feedback Dover.....
Good stuff 👍
I'll refrain from comment in case Frogman gives his appraisal (I hope he hasn't abandoned us?).....

I have no doubts that the ET2 is a superlative arm as I've heard nothing but praise for it from many people I trust (including you)...
It will just never find a spot in my system for various reasons...

I'm not convinced your lovely dog is a Linda Rondstadt fan though.

Au contraire mon frère.....
You will notice that Princi was absent for the V15/III performance but stayed on the couch opposite my listening spot for the whole ML140HE performance.
For the Ultra 500, he started on the couch opposite me but quickly came over to join me at the best listening position.
Make of that what you will......🤗 

Agree with you Dover on your Shure rankings.....
Despite Princi's preferences, the V15/III/SAS sounds more refined than the ML140HE.
Just be aware that the substitution of the SAS stylus improves the 'standard' V15/III and its ranking ahead of the 140HE would not guaranteed without stylus upgrade.
I suspect that if Shure had given the ML140HE a better designed body (more like the Ultra 500)....it could sound better than it does.
The Ultra 500 is in a different class altogether 🤗
It's refinement, cohesion, transparency and detail retrieval is impressive.
No matter what I throw at it (genre-wise)....I never tire of listening to this super cartridge.
Certainly amongst the top of my MM cartridge collection.

Will be interesting to hear it against the 'King'.....the Palladian 🧐

Henry, didn´t I tell you ; ) Never got tired of listening ..... since spring 1989.
David (dlaloum) also knew it: "sounds good everywhere". Indeed.
Is your Ultra 500´s stylus holder brown or grey ?

The stylus holder on mine is grey.
Is there any significance to the different colours?

Good to see new activity here. As halcro knows I have never been a big fan of Shure cartridges. While I have admired the things that they do well like the great tracking and sense of composure, in my systems they have always sounded dynamically polite and lacking natural instrumental color. I must say that I really enjoyed the sound of two of the three Shures being considered here. I may have to reconsider.

I completely agree with both your assessments of the cartridges even if I would describe what I hear somewhat differently. I listened to the V15 first and I found much to like. I liked the sound of Ronstadt’s voice with this cartridge a lot; for the wrong reasons, however (more on that later). But, instrumental sounds are missing high frequency content so they sound too covered. Not meaning to take liberties, but I think this may be one of the reasons that Halcro feels it sounds “more refined “ than the ML140. Perhaps also why Dover refers to it as “colored”. When missing highs instrumental sounds tend to sound more “full bodied”. The ML140, as Dover says, sounds clangy. There is an uneven emphasis of the upper mids/lower highs range that causes the piano and vibes to sound glangy. What I meant by “I liked it for the wrong reasons” is that I think that because of its reticence in the highs the V15 hides the effects on the high frequencies of the way the vocals were recorded. I would bet that they used the Aphex Aural Exciter on the vocals. It is commonly used on pop vocals and it has a distinctive sonic signature; like a high frequency halo that rides on top of the vocals. I find it annoying as it adds what to my ears is an unnatural harshness.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciter_(effect)

I think that the V15 masks those high frequency artifacts and the ML140 lays them bare and perhaps exaggerates them. I think this lets the V15 sound more refined by comparison.

The Ultra 500 strikes the best balance and I agree it is the best of the three. It’s tonal balance is actually closer to that of the V15 than the ML140, but not covered sounding and with more detail than the V15. It’s piano sound is by far the most natural with enough body and without the clanginess. One can still hear the processing on the vocals, but not nearly as much and doesn’t emphasize it like the ML does. Hadn’t heard this record in quite a while. Ronstadt sounds great; a nice sense of honesty and sincerity in her singing.

Yes, would be great to hear the Ultra compared to the Palladian even though the Decca is “King” in my book.

Thanks for the fun comparison.

Apology for the incorrect use of it’s/its.  Twice I overrode the spellchecker; apparently it still won ☹️.

Thanks Frogman....
I thought we had 'lost' you...😢
I was going to dedicate the next 'Shootout' to the 'late' Frogman 👅
I hope you have clicked on the 'Follow' note at the top of the discussion Thread as you will then receive an Email notification of all new Posts?

Great to have you back...

Some audiophiles seem to think that 'Uber Systems' are only worthwhile when playing perfectly recorded  Classical or Jazz recordings (unamplified instruments in real space a la H. Pearson and The Absolute Sound).
I especially have avoided most of the known 'Audiophile Test Records' in these videos, mainly because I generally don't agree they are 'great' but also because I mostly can't stand the music....🙉

I have found that ALL types of music and recordings benefit from higher resolution systems IF the system is REALLY good.
I've heard several million dollar systems I wish I hadn't.....😂

I have a large collection of Reggae, Electronica, Hip-Hop, Rap, R&B, Zydeco, Pop which ALL benefit from higher resolution playback.

This 'Shootout' is dedicated to Frogman (thus the LDR)  who I suspect is a 'closet' Hip-Hop/Rap  fan.......

SHURE ULTRA 500 MM Cartridge

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI Cartridge

SHURE ULTRA 500 MM Cartridge

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI Cartridge

Yeah, some do; and those are just one of the different types of knuckleheads in our hobby ☺️. All music benefits from a great sound system.

I may be mistaken, but if I interpret what you are saying correctly, and if the reference to HP means to suggest that he was that type, I would have to disagree. My sense is that his aim was to evaluate and rate components according to how, in his view, a component moved the recorded music closer of farther away from the sound of “unamplified music in a real space”. From that standpoint, I believe he was absolutely correct in his methodology. There are simply too many unknown variables in the sound of music that is amplified and/or recorded in a recording studio. This makes it almost impossible to judge how close the recording gets to a stated reference. That is certainly not to say that studio recordings don’t benefit from superb sound system. They do, big time. Makes for fantastic ear candy. In my experience most of what I consider to be, or are presented as, “audiophile” recordings do not aim for the sound of unamplified music in a real space. Like you, I usually can’t stand the music either. There are exceptions like the Reference Recordings, Chesky and others. Moreover, a good number of HP’s reference recordings were studio recordings. Don’t mean to be an apologist for a blowhard like HP, but the man had great ears, IMO. Good taste in Classical music. Rotten taste outside that genre. Re hip-hop:

No closet fan, but I don’t dismiss the genre at all. Sometimes there is nothing like a great groove with great attitude. Attitude being the operative word when it comes to hip-hop or rap. This is certainly not the thread for it, but much could be said about how the reliance on attitude relates to musical value; not to mention many other cultural values. IMO, and sorry for the rant.

On the 2Pac cut the Ultra 500 sounds impressive with an attractive fullness and “big” quality.....at first, and for a little while. Then, some of what I have always disliked about Shure’s starts to become obvious. It’s like a blanket has been thrown over the sound. A light thin blanket, like what my wife calls our “summer comforter” as opposed to the heavier winter comforter. The upper most harmonic content is missing from instrumental sounds. Everything sounds a little covered. What was an attractive fullness becomes an unnatural, borderline tubby, corpulent quality in the upper bass/lower miss that creeps into the midrange and obscures midrange detail; as if the xover point on the subs was set too high. Then there is the overall gray(ish) tonal quality that I have always disliked about Shure’s and many MM’s; a general lack of instrumental color in timbres. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Shure is a really good cartridge; but, they can’t all be great while sounding so different.

All of the above becomes very obvious when switching to the Decca. This, after compensating for the perceived lower volume level with the Decca and adjusting to the fairly dramatic difference in the “size” of the sound. With the Decca the sound is more contained and less opulent; it sounds less “impressive” at first. When the adjustment is made the good stuff happens. One hears much better harmonic extension with sounds no longer having an obvious high frequency “ceiling”. Vocals sound more natural with more obvious differences in the sound of individual singers. Musical interaction is more obvious and contributes more to the performance. Listen to the repeated synth bass line playing a rhythm that one usually associates with a scratching turntable. Indistinct and tubby with the Shure. Delineated and percussive with the Decca. Or, the synth “handclaps”. With the Shure my reaction was “what is that sound supposed to be?”. With the Decca it was obvious that, as bad as the sampled sound was, it was trying to sound like handclaps. Overall, a musically cleaner sound. I suppose one could argue that the Shure suits that music better than the Decca and some will surely prefer it with this music. I don’t.

On the Barber recording and in keeping with the “unamplified in real space” premise the differences are far greater. There is simply far more nuance in just about every aspect of that music, performance and recording; especially in the area of instrumental timbre realism. Except, perhaps, in the area of “attitude”....in the more usual, urban sense. Never mind that we have something that is much closer to what can justifiably be called a reference. In short, for me, all that I wrote about the 2Pac X 10. The Decca is in a different league.

Thanks for the comparison. Very interesting. I would bet that in spite of the fact that I think the Decca is a better cartridge than the Palladian, differences between the Shure and the Palladian are even greater. That was not a hint 😉....really.

Edit:

*** component moved the recorded music closer of farther away ***

“of” should read “or”

*** lower “miss” *** should read “lower mids”

Haste makes waste.  Sorry.