Hear my Cartridges....🎶

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.

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

... 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.

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.  

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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.

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 

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” ☹️

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

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. 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.

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

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 ...

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.

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.

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 ?

@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.

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 :__ )

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, 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...

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...

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.

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

Actually, don’t tell me...yet 🤔

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

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

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

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

SHURE LEVEL II/Beryllium 

SHURE LEVEL II/Ruby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Dated”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's what I hear....🤗

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FR-7f:

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

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

FR-7fz:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FR-7fz 

Fidelity Research FR-7fz Specifications

Frequency Response: 10 Hz to 35 kHz 

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

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7f LOMC Cartridge 


FIDELTY RESEARCH FR-7fz LOMC Cartridge

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

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

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

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

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

Did I say I like the Decca? 😊






Sent from my iPad

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

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7fz

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for the comparison, halcro. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palladian on the FR/Raven would reveal all. 

Will be interesting to get Frogmans diagnosis.

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

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

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