Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Palladian:

Dover’s comment about the piano’s left hand is spot on. Sounds a little “cloudy” and indistinct in that register. This also causes the celli and bases to lack some definition and natural sound of rosin. Other than this issue the Palladian was my overall favorite; and by quite a bit. String and piano timbres were easily the most natural of the three cartridges and there was an ease to the rhythmic flow of the music that was very attractive and felt correct.

SPU Silver:

From the very first string entrance. Yikes! Didn’t like at all. Violins way too steely sounding; particularly when playing forte. However, there was much less difference in tonal character between the piano’s left and right hands. Much better weight and definition in this range. More saturated tonal colors even if rather “technicolor” overall. I find the overall sound to have an “in your face” quality with a rather strange tonal balance.

FR:

The worst tracker of the three with a constant sense of being on the verge of breakup. In spite of this I much prefer it to the SPU and in some ways it finds a (not quite) middle ground between the Palladian’s tonal naturalness and the SPU’s technicolor character. I find it a little heavy handed (no pun) and relentless rhythmically; whereas the Palladian sounds more relaxed and rhythmically coherent. I have to admit that when going to the Palladian from the FR, the Palladian sounds a bit bleached in the tonal color department and wish for a little more of the incisiveness that Dover mentions. However, overall the Palladian is the most refined and natural sounding.  It has the fewest distractions that tell us “this is not real”.

Thanks, Halcro.

Dear Halcro,

The Palladian was and still is the best LIVE Mc cart I do know, the Century is even more open, surrounding the listener. I do not know how they do it. I did describe it on AudioCirc, also the differences. There is still one Century to be sold, not mine!

best
E.

And I thought, based on the sequence of posts, that Thuchan’s recommendation of the Century was directed at me ☺️ Silly me. $12,000 !!! C’mon, Halcro we need a shootout between the Century and the Palladian. Better still, between the Century and LDR 😉

Spelling correction to prior post: “bases” should, of course, be basses.  

Haha..
You'll have to ask Thuchan again for that 'shootout'....
He of course also has the LDR....😜

Thanks Frogman....
I think I had too much antiskate on the FR-7f which might explain its tracking performance?
I find it though, to be a delightful cartridge able to sound 'just right' whenever I come away from other cartridges.

The next 'shootout' should enliven you (I hope?) 🤯

Following Dover's suggestion, I moved the Palladian to the Copperhead Tonearm but not before recording its performance in the SAEC WE-8000/ST.

PALLADIAN ON SAEC WE-8000/ST TONEARM

PALLADIAN ON CONTINUUM AUDIO LABS COPPERHEAD TONEARM

@halcro
Wow - that was quick. You wouldn’t know these were the same cartridge if you hadn’t labelled them. This is why I have 4 decent tonearms.
I’m very interested in what you think yourself as well as @frogman .

For me on this particular piece of music the SAEC/Palladian initial impression is quick and fluid, very light/tight on overall orchestral balance.
With the Copperhead/Palladian initially the sound was so different - gutsy, big - it sounded a little messy. But once I adjusted to the balance for me the Copperhead/Palladian ( on my earbuds ) was just as quick but has a lot more resolution. The leading edge of the notes, decay and space around each instrument is far more resolved on the Continuum combo. I notice that bass notes on the Continuum combo have tremendous impact and start and stop on a dime, laying bare the acoustical space. On the SAEC there is speed in the upper end of the lower register, but it misses the leading edge and doesn’t really stop, just fades away. doesn’t seem to go as deep as on the Continuum. There is a "grey wash" across the spectrum with the SAEC, this is not there with the Copperhead.

Initially I thought the SAEC was more coherent overall, but I think this is partially an illusion from the lightweight balance. Again as I adjusted to the vastly different presentation of the Copperhead this impression disappeared, the Copperhead was quick, fast and coherent.

For me the Palladian would stay on the Copperhead. It’s an easy decision.

Thanks so much Halcro for going the extra mile it really demonstrated the importance of tonearm/cartridge matching. Copernicus returns !

Dover,
I can't say too much until Frogman reports.....but you're spot-on and I'm still stunned.
Will give a full response after the Maestro....
Thanks again Dover 🤯

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&hl=en-us&ei=IbVmXdrtIZLt_Qbn_JfQCw&q=you%27r...:

What a great sounding lp! One of my favorites. Wonderful performances.

Excellent comments by Dover. I agree completely with his assessments and descriptions; and, frankly, don’t have much to add except perhaps to describe some of what is heard somewhat differently.

The Copperhead is a better arm for the Palladian and it is obvious. The SAEC/Palladian combo has too much high frequency energy putting the tonal center of gravity too high in the overall spectrum. This results in what I think is what Dover describes as “lightness”. The “grey wash” is not so much the presence or addition of something, but the absence of something...realistic tonal color as with the Copperhead. Interestingly, and consistently, I described that very effect as “bleached” tonal colors in the previous Palladian/SPU/FR shootout. Instrumental timbres, particularly with upper strings and woodwinds, are more natural and realistic with the Copperhead.

**** The leading edge of the notes, decay and space around each instrument is far more resolved on the Continuum combo. I notice that bass notes on the Continuum combo have tremendous impact and start and stop on a dime, laying bare the acoustical space. On the SAEC there is speed in the upper end of the lower register, but it misses the leading edge and doesn’t really stop, just fades away. ****

Great comments. They go to what are, for me, the most important trait of this combo; it’s musical transparency. The Copperhead/Palladian combo makes clear the musical phrasing of the musicians while the SAEC glosses them over by comparison. The wonderful rallentandos (slowing of tempo) don’t seem to have as much musical meaning with the SAEC.

Very interesting comparison. Thanks.

Great you like the Palladian in the Copperhead!
maybe I will try it in the Copperhead or Cobra.
Do not forget the SAECs (506 and 8000) need an internal rewiring (best silver) and I got lots of experiences with new headshells, also on the 8000 (a new headshell built by AS). It sounds so different to the old SAEC stuff. Nevertheless the arms are exquisite!
My Palladian feels pretty well in the Kuzma Airline at the moment.

best
E.

Time for the CLASH OF THE TITANS ⚔️
The HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP of my cartridge collection.
The SHOOTOUT that the Maestro (Frogman) has been calling for 🧐

THE LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI CARTRIDGE 
                                      VS
THE AS PALLADIAN LOMC CARTRIDGE 

And we get to hear them both on the same turntable....😀

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI Cartridge

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI Cartridge 

The Wall. Both sound great.
-- LDR
Pros - Clean, uncolored, transparent, lack of glare, rhythmically coherent, percussion sounded right. The helicopter sounded real and Water’s multi-tracked laugh sounded like Rog’s voice. The kids ethereal voices were more intelligible.
Cons - Flatter sounding. Instruments had less body.
-- Palladian
Pros - 3D space, instruments had a spacial feel about them like the were made of something tangible. Appearance of fine inner detail. You can feel the bass guitar strings twanging and the depth of the instrument from front to back. Nice. The kids' voices occupied space with reflected echoes adding to the detail but losing intelligibility.
Cons - Added a pale gold-colored haze. Music seemed less coherent and muddled. Listen to Waters laugh mentioned above. It sounds confused. Can't get the sense that the MC sounds processed out of my mind.

I compared both with my own original copy on my second rig. Not kidding and not surprised and I know you know this but golly, the YouTube version is bad.

EDIT - played the YouTube versions again after listening to the real record. The hell... they sounded much better than the pre-real record listening session.

EDIT - played it again on my main rig. Slate modded 401 with retipped Decca Gold (Garrott Bros Microscanner Decapod with LDR line contact).
Man. Nearfield on the Quad ESL, it is holophonic. Wow. I haven't played this record in ages. Great recording.

Two wonderful cartridges and each prioritizes different aspects of recorded sound. I can definitely understand why some listeners might prefer the Palladian’s spatial boldness and bass power to the Decca’s more organized and “neater” approach to imaging and sound staging. Assuming, of course, that those are sonic priorities for that listener; even when at the expense of other sonic considerations. Don’t get me wrong, there probably is nothing that the Palladian doesn’t do extremely well. However, the Decca’s tonal truthfulness is simply killer; and, that is the No.1 sonic priority for me. Once I hear that superior rendition of timbres, for me, it doesn’t matter how impressive the sound stage may be with another cartridge. Add to that the fact that tonality is inextricably linked to the perception of my No.2 sonic priority, rhythmic truthfulness, and for me the Decca is the clear winner.

Noromance makes some excellent observations and I agree once again with his comments. His comment re the children’s voices was one of the first things that I noticed. However, I don’t necessarily agree with his implication (?) that the fact that the LDR is “flatter” sounding with “less body” is a negative. As we all know, sometimes less is more; especially when we are striving for accuracy to a reference. This goes to my “spatial boldness” comment and I am not at all convinced that this boldness is not a distortion or some phase related issue. I would describe what I hear this way:

First, the Palladian tracks play slightly louder than the Decca tracks and I had to match volume levels for each. The Palladian seems to present larger individual images, but not a larger amount of information. In fact, I hear it as akin to expanding a visual image to a larger size; the detail becomes diffuse and there is less apparent detail compared to the smaller more concise image. The LDR’s images seem more concentrated and I can hear more inner detail in the sound of instruments and voices (as Noromance points out). More of the inner texture of their sounds is preserved; tonal truthfulness. The Palladian at first gives the impression of greater refinement, but that is because it rounds the leading edges compared to the LDR. One hears more realistic grit in the sound of electric guitar and bass with the LDR. I find that the finest inner details of instrumental textures are glossed over compared to the LDR. Personally, I think that the Palladian’s overall character (only compared to the LDR) is too smooth. The uppermost harmonics in the sound of instrumental timbres are diminished, Probably better now that it is in the Copperhead arm, but still a little of what Dover referred to as a “grey wash”....COMPARED TO THE LDR. The Palladian has greater bass power, but the sound of bass instruments is too rounded compared to the LDR. On the Karr recording (wonderful!) there is more of the realistic sound of rosin grabbing metal strings with the LDR which gives the sound more definition. All this goes to No.2 sonic priority, rhythm:

To my ears the bass quality of the Palladian is too “bloomy”. There is too much overhang of bass notes. At first the greater bass power and sheer bigness of it is impressive, but I think it actually mucks up the rhythmic interplay between instruments. On “The Wall”, check out the repeated bass note that begins at 4:03. Tight and well defined with the LDR. The absence of overhang allows the drums to sound more in synch with the bass for the feeling of greater rhythmic impetus in the music. With the LDR the rhythmic grooves simply sound a little groovier. On the Karr recording, his beautiful phrasing is somehow more expressive than with the Palladian. At 3:13 he begins a phrase with a suddenly aggressive bowed note. There is a certain amount of startle factor to that musical detail. With the Palladian’s there is less startle factor than with the LDR which sounds faster and more impactful due to the absence of the extra bloom and thickness of the Palladian’s bass.

All this is relatively subtle and both are great cartridges. However, as always, they can’t both sound equally close to the true sound of music while sounding so different. For me, the Decca gets closer.

Great comparison. Wonderful recordings. I love the Karr recording. Believer it or not, had never heard music from “The Wall” and had not followed the band since “Dark Side “ days. I liked it very much. One to pick up.

Thanks, as always.

I'm pleased you like the Gary Karr 'Kol Nidre' Fogman 😃
I thought you would.....although it gets only half the views on YouTube that 'The Wall' gets 😞
Also really glad you enjoyed hearing 'The Wall' for the first time....
It deserves a place in your collection as does their 'WISH YOU WERE HERE' album.

As usual, your comments re the PALLADIAN vs LDR 'Shootout' were brilliant....but I appreciate how you went the 'Extra Mile' in putting into words...in fine detail...what you hear to be the differences.
I cannot disagree with a single description or observation you have made 👍
You even pre-empted what would have been my only contribution, by anticipating...

I can definitely understand why some listeners might prefer the Palladian’s spatial boldness and bass power to the Decca’s more organized and “neater” approach to imaging and sound staging.
At first the greater bass power and sheer bigness of it is impressive,

Two great cartridges, I agree....and I'm particularly pleased that your 'Winner' is not a Moving Coil Cartridge 🤗

I now have the Palladian permanently ensconced on the Copperhead Tonearm whilst the LDR is sitting pretty on one of the FR-66S Tonearms.
That allows for my other FR-66S to continue to serve as my 'Test Bed' and 'Flavour Change' for all my other LOMCs.

I now hope you can help me settle....in the same way.....the MM Cartridges to be 'selected' for the arms around the Victor TT-101?

Many thanks again Frogman..and Dover, Noromance, Harold and others who have commented...😃

Regards 

From the 'sublime' to the 'ridiculous' 🤪
It seems that with careful selection, one can get what one pays for with phono cartridges....
The best (in my case) being the $5,000 LONDON DECCA REFERENCE  and the $10,000 AS PALLADIAN 
But the majority of audiophiles are not in the market for that kind of expenditure on a cartridge.
What can one purchase for a more modest $450...?
For decades....thousands of audiophiles have used the DENON DL-103R as their 'budget' LOMC cartridge.

DENON'S involvement with moving coil cartridges dates back to the 1930s when they were engaged in a joint R&D effort with NHK to produce a high performance and high reliability cartridge for broadcast use. The legendary DL-103 moving coil phono cartridge was introduced in 1963, which became one of the longest running products in audio history. 
Denon collaborated with the Japan Broadcasting Corporation Technical Research Laboratories in 1963 to make this extremely reliable, high-performance low-output phono cartridge. As the first moving coil cartridge, the DL-103 will always be the standard of reliability in every aspect, even the price.

It can still be bought today, 'brand new' for $450...

Then there is the venerable SHURE V15/III which can be purchased 'used' for less.
But most audiophiles will not accept or buy a 'used' cartridge with unknown provenance and usage hours.
For $200, one can purchase a 'used' V15/III WITHOUT its original stylus 😀 
For $200 more....one can purchase directly from Jico....their famous SAS stylus on a Boron cantilever or for $250, the SAS stylus on a Sapphire cantilever.
This will give you, essentially a 'Brand New' Shure V15/III which is much improved over the original because of the radical profile of the SAS diamond and the more sophisticated cantilever.

Which one is better....? 🤔

DENON DL-103R
A 'Wall of Sound' that would make Phil Spector blanch...

SHURE V15/III/SAS 

SHURE V15/III/SAS

DENON DL-103R
Listen at the 0.49 second mark for the 'ice pop' in the Scotch 🥃 

Heard the ice plop! What scotch are you drinking?
Wife said Shure sounds nicer playing on the phone, in bed.

Macallan 25? The Palladian of single malt Scotch. Bold, a little rounded, slightly sweet with a very long finish (that pesky overhang) and $$$$$.  Would recognize that sound anywhere 😄😄😄😄😄.

Hahaha....😀
Can't compete with rich musicians and their predilections for only 'The Best'.
I'm a 'Working Class' blended Scotch man....
In this case, Dimple is a fine drop 🤪🥃

You could always sell a cartridge and afford the good stuff!
Because of this post, I’m tasting 3 tonight. The Benriach 16, Auchentoshan 12, and The Balvenie Peat Week 14. Hic.

Auchentoshan!!!  Don’t hear that name too often.  A real sleeper and not too expensive.  One of my faves. 

I'm obviously out of my league here.....🥴

Auchentoshan is very nice. I tend to drink more scotch in the wintee—maybe because I like peaty lowlands wirh iodine and funk. Lagavulin, Ardbeg, Talisker...not sure which arm/cartridge that would be  

Auchentoshan is very nice. I tend to drink more scotch in the wintee—maybe because I like peaty lowlands wirh iodine and funk. Lagavulin, Ardbeg, Talisker...not sure which arm/cartridge that would be  

Balvenie 25, Nikka 12 and Oban 25 I ❤️ 

So as to not derail Halcro’s great thread too much, please forgive a bit of self-promotion (?) in pointing out this thread started several 😱 years ago. A little 🙄 hyperbolic on my part, but some may find something of interest:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/best-single-malt-scotch?highlight=Best%2Bsingle%2Bmalt%2Bscot...

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 Cartridge

SONY XL-88 LOMC Cartridge 

Tricky!

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.

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.....🤯

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?

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 

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.

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 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...🤗

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!

😃
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......🤔🥴

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.

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.

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? 😊

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.

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.

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 @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.

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.

Now that the RAVEN AC-2 IS SORTED.....I need to determine the best two MM Cartridges for the Victor DD.
So for Mandrake, Houdini and any other Sorcerers, Conjurers, Illusionists or Jugglers....lets start with these two 🤔

GLANZ 610LX MM Cartridge

VICTOR X-1 MM Cartridge

VICTOR X-1 MM Cartridge

GLANZ 610LX MM Cartridge 

I feel like I'm
WAITING FOR GODOT 

I know what you mean! 😏