Many Forums have a 'Show your Turntables' Thread or 'Show your Cartridges' Thread but that's just 'eye-candy'.... These days, it's possible to see and HEAR your turntables/arms and cartridges via YouTube videos. Peter Breuninger does it on his AV Showrooms Site and Michael Fremer does it with high-res digital files made from his analogue front ends. Now Fremer claims that the 'sound' on his high-res digital files captures the complex, ephemeral nuances and differences that he hears directly from the analogue equipment in his room. That may well be....when he plays it through the rest of his high-end setup 😎 But when I play his files through my humble iMac speakers or even worse.....my iPad speakers.....they sound no more convincing than the YouTube videos produced by Breuninger. Of course YouTube videos struggle to capture 'soundstage' (side to side and front to back) and obviously can't reproduce the effects of the lowest octaves out of subwoofers.....but.....they can sometimes give a reasonably accurate IMPRESSION of the overall sound of a system.
With that in mind.....see if any of you can distinguish the differences between some of my vintage (and modern) cartridges. VICTOR X1 This cartridge is the pinnacle of the Victor MM designs and has a Shibata stylus on a beryllium cantilever. Almost impossible to find these days with its original Victor stylus assembly but if you are lucky enough to do so.....be prepared to pay over US$1000.....🤪 VICTOR 4MD-X1 This cartridge is down the ladder from the X1 but still has a Shibata stylus (don't know if the cantilever is beryllium?) This cartridge was designed for 4-Channel reproduction and so has a wide frequency response 10Hz-60KHz. Easier to find than the X1 but a lot cheaper (I got this one for US$130). AUDIO TECHNICA AT ML180 OCC Top of the line MM cartridge from Audio Technica with Microline Stylus on Gold-Plated Boron Tube cantilever. Expensive if you can find one....think US$1000.
I will be interested if people can hear any differences in these three vintage MM cartridges.... Then I might post some vintage MMs against vintage and MODERN LOMC cartridges.....🤗
Thanks, Halcro. I think you may have missed the point I tried to make re the live concert you posted. I have to assume that you have attended live music performances in a first rate concert hall and not just in awful spaces like the one you posted. THAT is what is HP and many have referred to as “the absolute sound”; and the sound in a venue like that is unmatched by any audio system. Unless, of course:
Hahaha...... Coming from you Eckart, that is high praise 😇 I know how much you love mono, and I also know how much you love jazz 🎹🥁🎷🎺 You should get this Ray Charles boxset from Discogs. It contains 5 discs (10 sides) of his wonderful music mostly recorded before he hit the big time of international success.
I may have more MM cartridges than you my friend......but you have the greatest collection of vintage and modern LOMCs that I know of. Some of them never seen nor heard by the majority of true analogue-lovers. You should make some Youtube videos of them for posterity....🎼
Incidentally......which cartridge do you prefer in mono?
This should be an interesting comparison....🤗 Five years ago, at the start of the mono-cartridge ’fad’.......I bought the AUDIO-TECHNICA AT-33 MONO LOMC Cartridge to see if there was an improvement over using my stereo cartridges with my Phonostage MONO switch engaged. The AT-33 MONO has a 0.65 ml conical stylus on a Duralumin pipe cantilever with a reasonably high static compliance of 20×10-6cm/dyne and a low dynamic compliance of 6×10-6cm/dyne (100Hz). It has a reasonably healthy output for a LOMC of 0.35mV (1kHz and 5cm/sec. horizontal signal).
Thanks Frogman..... The reason I showed and commented on the live orchestra in Ravello is that they were all REAL unamplified instruments in 'real' space yet to me.....it didn't matter 😴 It left me cold 🥶 and unmoved 🙉....and I really didn't want to stay till the end. And I DIDN'T......🏃🏻♂️ My point is, that despite this being 'The Absolute Sound' by HP's definition......it wasn't 'The Holy Grail' and if my system sounded anything like this, the Classifieds on A'Gon would be full of my components 🤣 And no..........it really wasn't easily recognisable as 'live' instruments to me 👎 and I've had previous similar experiences. I understand completely how important the 'live' experience is to you....but to me, I want 'theatre' ⚡️💥🎉 I want to be immersed, astounded, moved and left shaking my head in disbelief at what I am hearing in my own room..... That's what keeps me turning it on almost every day (as I have for 40 years). But I suspect that most in this enigmatic hobby of ours....have slightly different personal priorities. And that's also why I simply 'hang' on your descriptions of my cartridges.....most of the time I don't know what you're talking about until I go back and listen to what you have pointed out...🤔 Vive les differences....🙃
Halcro, thanks for the additional comments. Just a few more from me; not as a challenge to any of yours, but to further explain how the process works for me.
As you acknowledged, my (and most musicians’) priorities in reproduced sound are timbre and rhythm; and not necessarily in that order. That’s where the “magic” is for me. We all listen for different things and prioritize different aspects of recorded sound. As fun as a great soundstage is it really has little, if anything, to do with the music (performance). Just two days ago, I was speaking to a colleague and audio buddy about music and audio. He reviews equipment for a small on-line ‘zine. He had been listening to a new pair of speakers and commented on and corroborated what I have often said; an oversimplification to be sure, but that one of the best considerations when evaluating speakers is how they sound outside the listening room; or, at least, while sitting away from the sweet spot. Is the sound still tonally believable and can one still get a reasonable amount of the immediacy of live?
We do seem to have some agreement about how the two cartridges each sound; while describing it differently. You seem to like the Shure’s seemingly more extended bass. I listened to the two musical examples again. Interestingly, I don’t hear any bass information from the Shure that I don’t hear with the Decca. However, there is more bass volume with the Shure. It is fuller, more “powerful” (volume wise) sounding with the Shure, but not more extended. So, at least with these two musical examples, I don’t hear this supposedly superior bass extension. I say “supposedly” because, to me, the leaner and more linear response in the bass range of the Decca sounds more natural, more rhythmically lithe; closer to real. The extra oomph and thickness in the upper bass/lower mids of the Shure crowds the midrange for what I hear as less clarity, not more. Clearly we are listening for different things in a recording.
I am not surprised in the least that you were not impressed with the sound at the live concert that you posted and I am not sure what, if anything, this particular example proves. I don’t think that any advocate of the superiority of live sound would argue that every example of live is going to be a good one. An outdoor space like that with an orchestra on a portable stage is not going to sound stage well at all; not by audiophile standards, any way. In a food hall it is a different matter altogether as I am sure you know. However, the sound of a live performance in any venue no matter how inferior it is acoustically will still exhibit certain sonic characteristics that elude even the very best audio systems. In live music there is an immediacy and vibrancy to the musical intent of the performers that is diminished (or distorted) by each step of the record-playback process. Even in an inferior acoustic there can be a brutally honest depiction of timbre without hype. For me that is where the magic is; everything else, while fun, is secondary and often just sonic fluff. What I am talking about is akin to the feeling one gets when walking down the street and out of an open window the sound of someone playing trumpet, violin, or a jazz trio is heard. Very low-fi with no sound staging at all; but one immediately knows that the sound is live. Why is that? Timbre and rhythm. The magic. Is it possible that while searching for the elusive sound stage and changing your seat five times that you may have missed the magic of the performance? How did the orchestra play? Even in, sometimes especially in, a brutally honest outdoor acoustic the differences in timbre between, for instance, violins and violas is heard with a level of realism that even the best audio systems (usually played at too high a volume) can’t match.
Anyway, just some further thoughts and thanks again for the posts.
But, some get closer to it than others. And that is what I hear and try to describe. The differences may be very subtle, but they are there. To me, the Decca sounds closer to the sound of music as I know it than the Shure does. So, if that is to be the case, then there have to be differences between the two. I suspect that you are reacting more strongly to what I am describing as the differences (and reason for the preference) than is warranted? Also keep in mind that, as should be obvious, that for me the most important aspect of all this is to all issues. For me that is the most important aspect of it all.
I get it Frogman....🤗 And I appreciate how as a musician....this is surely the most important thing for you. For me however....there are too many variables in the performance, recording-quality, mastering, editing, cutting and stamping of the vinyl discs that I am not consciously 'comparing' the sound to 'live music'. I've been to so many live concerts (classical, rock, electronic, reggae, jazz) that I know, when the sound is at its best (and particularly with amplified music)......there is no way that a recording can compete with the guttural, body-tingling, stomach-churning, ear-splitting and mind-blowing sound of 'LIVE' music. Conversely.....when the live sound is POORLY produced (at the mixing desk with amplified music or due to the acoustics of the venue or seating position with unamplified music)....I can easily prefer the sound I achieve at home. So despite the fact that the instruments are 'REAL' and their sounds are 'AUTHENTIC'....if the END RESULT is flawed in any way.....I am not moved 🥶
HERE is a concert I attended a few years ago in Ravello (Italy) performed by the Shenzhen Symphony Orchestra on a clifftop overlooking the Amalfi Coast. Despite the presence of 65 live musicians playing REAL instruments in open air.....the 'sound' was abysmal!!!! I firstly sat in the middle, three rows back and could not believe what I was hearing... No oomph, no bass, no dynamics, no 'soundstage', little volume and definitely no MAGIC 😱. I changed my seating on 5 occasions to see if the sound might improve with elevation or positioning....all to no avail.
When I listen to a particular cartridge in my system at home....It needs to have the tonal balance from lower bass, mid-bass, midrange to treble reasonably balanced. The midrange to me is fundamental.... If it is not convincing and doesn't reproduce a palpable three dimensionality to my ears....it fails. The important differences I hear between cartridges are in their presentations of 'Soundstage'...side to side, front to back, illusion of depth, separation of instruments and the air around them.
As much as I like the LDR.....the Ultra 500 goes slightly down lower with more authority in the bass. The 'highs' on the Ultra 500 have slightly more 'air' and 'transparency'. The LDR is definitely not a 'soundstage' champ 👎 Its 'width' remains inside the two speakers whereas the Ultra 500 extends past the outsides of both. The LDR has little 'back' depth and virtually no forward projection whereas the Ultra 500 fairly 'bulges' in a parabolic manner INTO the listening room so that if I turn the volume really high...I fear it might 'push' against me 😝
These characteristics I believe, may only be apparent from my listening position 'in situ'. We can't expect them to be heard or appreciated over a Youtube video... And that's why I think we are not quite connecting Frogman...🤔
But then I'm surprised you manage to hear ANY of the distinctions you so ably describe via such a limited medium.. I'll keep 'em coming as long as you keep liking and contributing...🥳
Are you certain it wasn’t a setup or record issue?
Well I'm certain it wasn't a record issue because it occurred on all records. I'm not certain it wasn't a setup issue but it occurred on the three tonearms surrounding the Victor......the knife-edge bearing SAEC, the gimbal-bearing FR-64S and the DV-507/II. By 'mistracking'....I mean it 'jumped' a groove in only two spots (perhaps the nulls?) on each record. Not too annoying, but nada with the FR-66S 🤗
@halcro That’s disappointing. Are you certain it wasn’t a setup or record issue? I run all my Deccas on 2 lowly Jelco 850 12" and 9" (and a 12" 750 gimbal on another table) arms with knife-edge bearings (albeit good ones) and have no issues with mistracking.
Of course, now I’m second guessing my interpretation of mistracking!
Agree with you both on the FR-5E and 6SE,,,,,, I have always preferred the 6SE to the 5 and 5E and have been confounded by the preference of some (J Carr and Chakster) for the FR-5E? They are BOTH coloured cartridges in that they emphasise the 'warmth' of presentation (in a good way-like tubes 😀). But whilst the FR-6SE keeps a happy balance in the spectrum between bass to treble....the 5E doesn't, almost descending into 'syrupy'. The beauty of both of them, to me, is the projection into the room of the entire soundstage. It envelopes you and because they are so warm and free of any brittleness....the louder one plays, the better (and more natural) they become. In fact they are the ideal cartridges for turning 'digital' recordings into 'analogue-sounding' recordings 🤩 Despite the 'easy' preference for the FR-6SE....I can still happily listen to the FR-5E.....at least on the Victor DD. On the Raven AC-2, it becomes admittedly annoying 🥴
I will elaborate on the previous discussion about the LDR and the Ultra 500 shortly Frogman....😎 I feel there is some resistance to appreciating my 'in-room' experiences...? 🙉
I started off with the LDR in the FR-64S on the TT-101 Noromance...but the notorious reputation of the Deccas for mistracking, were borne out on all my tonearms other than the FR-66S 🙏🏽
Actually, if anything, what kept me from prioritizing a little bit of time for the comparison and response was, in part, what you didn’t say. I haven’t read any specifics re what exactly differentiates the last two cartridges for you. Seems to me that for comments, and certainly for dialogue, to have any real relevance then there should be more than statements of disagreement or comment about NOT hearing what differentiates them for someone else. A little frustrating. No sweat if you don’t want to go there for whatever reason. 😅
Also, I’m a bit mystified by the suggestion that listening on an IPad (!) might be more revealing of differences than on Stax Lambda Pro Sigs/tube amp. No way!
Ok, on the FR’s:
I agree completely with noromance. In fact it mirrors what I was going to write exactly. With the 5 the drums sound like they have blankets stuffed in them. Overall, a but runny and too covered sounding; pretending to be “smoother/more refined”. Not enough hf extension and too much lower mid. With the 6 there is a strong sense of hearing more deeply into what is on the lp; even if that may not be particularly smooth itself. I would differ with noromance only in that I would not call that level of sibilance “slight”. I don’t know if it is setup issues, but that level would be unacceptable for me. My sense is that at least some of that excessive sibilance is on the recording (peaky vocal mic?) and the 5 is tamping it down. The 6’s far better hf response exposes it.
Listened to them on my headphones. The 6 is in a different league. More snap, air, drums have a reverb against back wall, rim shots audible, clearer diction, more slight sibilance (not necessarily a good thing but at least you can hear it- tracking?), louder. The 5 is muddy and dull. It's not even worth go on about it any further!
I thought it might be interesting to hear the differences between the two cheap Fidelity Research MM cartridges the FR-5E and FR-6SE. There are different opinions on which is the better cartridge 🧐 The FR-5E is a low-compliance elliptical stylus on aluminium cantilever obviously designed to suit the heavy Fidelity Research tonearms like the FR-64s and FR-66s. The FR-6SE is a similarly specified elliptical stylus which cost $210 (on release) compared to the $130 of the 5E. What the differences are with the 'motor' I have no idea.....?
Thanks for the comments Dover. There have been more than a few cartridges I've had that "I simply cannot stand"......two of them, much-acclaimed LOMCs with $12,000 pricetags 😱 In these cases, I sell them off fairly quickly.... Of the other 50 I still have, they all have "shortcomings" but also they all have 'something' that enlightens me and their "shortcomings" are not significant enough (nor annoying enough) to prevent my enjoyment.
Unfortunately....I 'fried' my original XV-1s (don't ask) and sent it to Axel who saved it by rewiring the coils (and replacing the stylus). In doing so, he reduced the output to about 0.12mV but it sounded good 😃 Then one day......the right channel 'burnt out' 🥵 And I haven't decided if I liked it enough (in comparison to some of my other cartridges) to send it to Peter Ledermann.....?
Thanks for the comments, Halcro. Somehow, I feel we are not connecting with what we are each trying to say re our experiences and descriptions. Dover is correct by pointing out that sometimes once a shortcoming or difference is identified it renders the component, if not always unlistenable, then obviously flawed. I understand that you enjoy all the cartridges in your collection. I would too; you have many of the best. However, I still want to understand what about them, in this case the Shure and Decca, you hear as different from each other? I approach this exercise (and the hobby in general) from the standpoint of determining which component gets me closer to the sound of music as I (!) know it. Once that is established then one component necessarily becomes superior to the other and the other inferior. I also don’t particularly enjoy swapping out components. In the case of cartridges I have found that once I find a cartridge that I like, I prefer to live with it for some time and learn how very small adjustments in set up can optimize the sound. Just one of the many reasons that I live the ET2; it makes this possible and easy. I am a bit perplexed as to why I keep getting the feeling that there is resistance to the idea that one cartridge might be superior to the other. Again, they can’t all be equally good.
**** But they CAN all be wrong....even the LDR.****
Exactly right! And, once again, proof of just how far removed even the best are from “the absolute sound”.
But, some get closer to it than others. And that is what I hear and try to describe. The differences may be very subtle, but they are there. To me, the Decca sounds closer to the sound of music as I know it than the Shure does. So, if that is to be the case, then there have to be differences between the two. I suspect that you are reacting more strongly to what I am describing as the differences (and reason for the preference) than is warranted? Also keep in mind that, as should be obvious, that for me the most important aspect of all this is to all issues. For me that is the most important aspect of it all.
**** Could you perhaps try to listen through speakers (or iPad) to see if you can hear some differences in presentation? ****
I have! And not just for comparing cartridges. I have been doing so for many years. Not only do I not think the method is flawed, I have found that for determining differences in timbre and things like musical phrasing my Stax/tube driver setup is superior to speaker listening. Keep in mind that my speakers are also electrostatics (Stax F81) or transmission line (Paragon Regent). As good as the Paragons are they are no match for the Stax as far as faithfulness to tonal issues. I will concede that headphones are inferior to good speakers as far as sound staging issues are concerned. But, those are secondary concerns for me. Btw, about a year ago a friend who owns the Audeze and I did a comparison to my Stax and while the Audeze sounds very good I (and he) felt that the Stax did a better job of revealing tonal differences as well being more rhythmically lithe. The Audeze setup was very good, but to me was overly full sounding. I kept thinking “this reminds me of the sound of better Grado cartridges”.
Thanks for the comments and comparisons and keep them coming.
During the month that one of my DM-58 Monoblocks was being repaired......I was forced to listen through headphones (Audeze LCD-2 Magnetic Planars with Schiit Audio Lyr Valve Headphone Amp). Having listened to my cartridges for 40 years solely through speakers...I was unable to recognise or differentiate any of my cartridges through the headphones. The sense of transparency, soundstage, depth of field, bass location, room dynamics etc were all missing and thus my 'knowledge' of the specific cartridge traits had disappeared. This is not to say Frogman, that your method of listening through headphones is flawed.....only that it's far far different from the way I experience my cartridges in my listening room. Could you perhaps try to listen through speakers (or iPad) to see if you can hear some differences in presentation?
Halcro, its interesting. I have found with multiple turntables and cartridges that ultimately I come down to a strong preference. I find that once I have identified shortcomings in a cartridge then it becomes unistenable, all I hear are the shortcomings. I'm not so hard on the Shures like Frogman, I did manage to listen to a Roksan/Final Audio ET2/Shure V15vxmr for about 10 years whilst having an audio hiatus. On the other hand I simply cannot stand my original mint Victor X1, use to enjoy the Koetsu Black with Zeta, but my latest one sounds stodgy most of the time in my current system. A lot of it comes down to system matching as well, particularly step up/phono characteristics.
Would like to hear the Dyanvector XV1S (original ) vs the Decca if you are inclined. I have not had the opportunity to hear the Dynavector XV series in a system I know..
Again, they can’t both be equally good at replicating the sound of music if they each sound so different from the other.
But ALL my cartridges sound different to each other....👅 That's the beauty (to me) of having these two different turntables, six arms and 50+ cartridges 🥳 If you were right (in the absolute sense).....I would keep the LDR and the Palladian and sell all my other cartridges..🧐 The LDR is not the favourite cartridge of my collection.... Nor is the Palladian.... They are BOTH amongst my favourite 10-12 👍 But I would be devastated if I couldn't listen to my Victors or SPUs or Signets or Graces or Shures or FRs or Sonys or Empires... It's the DIFFERENCES between all these gorgeous creatures that I celebrate 🥳 Of course they all can't be RIGHT..... But they CAN all be wrong....even the LDR. Is the Ultra 500 the equal of the LDR....? I can only say that I can listen to the Ultra 500 for longer (without the itch to change) than I can the LDR... But I really do appreciate your insight and comments.....
Now....which two cartridges would you like to hear next? 😀
For me it always comes back to something very simple: they can’t all be equally good while sounding so different. My comments are about the differences, as I hear them, in direct comparison (same setup, same music). As I commented, the Shure sounds impressive at first and would probably continue to sound impressive. Additionally, if for some strange reason I were ever forced to use a Shure, I would not feel the urge to run out of the room or to cut back on music listening time. It is a very good and enjoyable cartridge. However, in direct comparison to the Decca the differences are pretty obvious. So, what to make of this? Again, they can’t both be equally good at replicating the sound of music if they each sound so different from the other.
**** I really can't hear what you describe no matter what genre I throw at them. ****
So, in what ways does the Ultra sound different from the Decca to you? Or, are you saying that to you the Shure sounds just like, or is the equal of the Decca?
Haha....no no Frogman. All good 😘 I've been busy lately attending to things around the house which seem to pile up till they become almost overwhelming 🥵 The 'end' however is hopefully in sight....
I am a little perplexed though with your opinions on the Shures, as I really can't hear what you describe no matter what genre I throw at them. Particularly the Ultra 500 which, in my listening room....is one of the finest and most enjoyable of all my cartridges. We'll have to agree to differ on this one...🤔
It's interesting to see what are the most viewed cartridges on Youtube... The Victor X-1 and Z1/SAS are the most watched with the Empire 400D/III Gold in hot pursuit. The LDR is racking up views across its many videos as is the Shure V15/III/SAS. The FR-7fz is surprisingly heavily viewed....probably because of its reputation and rarity?
I'm thinking about the next 'shoot-out'..... Any suggestions?
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.
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.......
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?
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.
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.
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 ?
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 🧐
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......🤗
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 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....🧐
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.
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.
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:
Ultra 500 (V15 Type V-MR modified for lower moving tip mass of 0.165mg)
V15 Type V-MR, Ultra VST-V (as per Type V, MR tip)
V15 Type V (HE tip, beryllium tube cantilever, tip mass 0.17mg)
V15 Type V-G (as per Type V, conical tip)
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)
Ultra 400 (ML140HE body with MR tip, laminated core, beryllium tube cantilever, tip mass 0.19mg)
ML140HE (laminated core, beryllium tube cantilever, HE tip)
VST-III, V15 Pro/S, Realistic V15-RS (same body as V15VxMR, HE tip, beryllium tube stylus)
V15 Type IV-MR (the MR tip was a later upgrade for the Type IV stylus)
V15 Type IV (laminated core, telescopic aluminium tube cantilever with beryllium stub, HE tip, tip mass 0.29mg)
V15 Type IV-G (as per Type IV except with conical tip)
Ultra 300 (same body as Ultra 400, ML140HE and ML120HE, telescopic aluminium tube cantilever, MR tip, tip mass 0.3mg)
ML120HE (laminated core, telescopic aluminium tube cantilever, HE tip)
V15 Type III-MR (as per Type III, but later upgraded with MR tip stylus)
V15 Type III-HE (as per Type III, but later upgraded with HE tip stylus)
V15 Type III (laminated core, aluminium tube cantilever with beryllium stub, elliptical tip, tip mass 0.33mg)
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.
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.
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 ...
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? 🤔
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
