For those who have been following......after moving the AS Palladian LOMC Cartridge to the Copperhead Tonearm on the Raven AC-2 Belt-Drive.....I tried my SONY XL-88 LOMC CARTRIDGE in the SAEC WE-8000/ST arm around my Victor TT-101. Not expecting too much, I didn't bother removing it from its heavy FR-3 headshell 😴 And lo and behold....both the cartridge AND arm came 'alive'!! To me....hearing it in my room....it became the 'preferred cartridge' in my collection. A few weeks afterwards, I became aware that the rare (and expensive) DIAMOND CANTILEVERED version (the XL-88D) was for Auction on Japan Yahoo and because I was in love with the 'Standard' version...I was brave enough to bid 'high' for the XL-88D in SUCH FINE CONDITION..... I was so 'bowled over' by the sound of this cartridge in my system, that I started a THREAD devoted to it. SONY XL-88 LOMC CARTRIDGESONY XL-88D LOMC CARTRIDGE Diamond CantileverSONY XL-88 LOMC CARTRIDGESONY XL-88D LOMC CARTRIDGE Diamond CantileverDover Commented:- Hi Halcro - in my view, even on standard mac ibuds/Macair, it's quite easy to here significant differences between the XL88 & XL88D.
In some ways the 1st comparision was more revealing - the base line on the XL88D has much better timing and resolution. The XL88 by comparison has no timing at all on the base line, its all over the place. There is more information around the base line in paricular, harmonic fulness and detail. The high frequencies on the XL88D are crisper and appear to be significantly more transparent.
On the second recording again the timing is better, more transparent through the while range, by that I mean you can hear more body, harmonic completeness and sustain and decay of notes. Piano is much more purposeful on the XL88D ( and more real ).
As an aside, on your comparision of the Palladian and XL88 on the other thread the mid to top end of the XL88 sounded identical to the old Madrigal Carnegie on baroque music both of which I listen to a lot. The Carnegie was a Sony XLMC9 rebadged. Your comment about "vintage cartridges" is a little misnomer as Sony Soundtech designed these cartridges to be the ultimate analogue ( triple layer cantilevers of boron/carbon & aluminium, newly designed figure 8 coil layout and the Sony motor design was adopted by both Van den hul & Benz. The Early Van den hul MC1/Benz Ref/Carnegie are virtually identical.
I do note however the bass being still a little vague on the SAEC/XL88 on the baroque ( noticeable because the mid to top end is so good ) and would encourage you to find a lighter more rigid headshell - these Sony's are medium compliance and their suspensions are not robust. Again I believe the Cobra tonearm would provide the same improvements with the Sony XL's as you experienced with the Palladian over the SAEC.
I know from personal experience the Sony XL88D performed extremely well on the Dynavector tonearm I own, significantly better than on the SAEC 407/23 used on the same turntable.
Finally, congrats on the acquisition of the XL88D, one day it will be no more, but at least you have had the pleasure of hearing it for a while, a very special cartridge.
Frogman Commented:- First, I agree entirely with Dover’s excellent observations re the differences between the sound of the two Sony cartridges. I might describe the differences heard somewhat differently, but I think that we are hearing the same things. For instance, his observation of the superior “timing” of the 88D, I would describe as the standard 88 having comparatively wooly bass with a sense of uncontrolled overhang. This causes it to have inferior pitch definition and clarity of bass notes compared to the 88D. Good pitch definition and clarity are key aspects of good musical timing. A rather wordy description of what Dover later described succinctly as more “articulate”. In all, I agree with his observations re the 88D’s superior clarity and, most important for me, superior “harmonic completeness”; the timbre of instruments, saxophone and trumpet in particular, sound closer to real.
Apologies if I have missed commentary on this point, but I think that in the quest for determining what the absolute “best” cantilever material is, not enough has been made of the fact that the cantilever material that is best for one cartridge may not be the best choice for another cartridge that uses a different motor and a different housing; all which contribute to the overall sonic signature of the cartridge as determined by the designer’s goals. Different motors offer different levels of resolution and have certain general tonal signatures just as different cartridge housings have different sonic signatures due to their particular resonance characteristics. I am certainly no expert on phono cartridges and my experience with them is certainly very limited compared to the OP’s and many here, but looking at the Sony I see a cartridge with a rather large and boxy housing constructed largely of plastic. Just an observation not meant as a criticism; clearly it is a great cartridge. To my simplistic way of thinking it would be no surprise that a cartridge with a housing that APPEARS to be less rigid and possibly more resonant than one which is more compact and rigid would benefit from a diamond cantilever with its higher degree of rigidity. The same very rigid cantilever/stylus on a cartridge with a motor and/or housing which may have inherently leaner sonic characteristics may not be the best choice for a particular cartridge designer’s goals.
Congrats on your new cartridge, Halcro; would love to hear a comparison of the 88D and the Palladian playing acoustic (orchestral?) music. Thanks for another interesting thread. |
|
Halcro, you MOT, awesome service you've done by letting us get a listen of these different cartridges. I am ‘relatively’ new to the hobby (returned after tine away) and even on UTube, the difference berween these cartridges is so obvious. Thanks for this semi-scientific way that lets us all appreciate how significant a good transducer is. |
Thanks for the kind words Dramatictenor....😃
You have a ’good’ ear to appreciate the differences....
Some listeners cannot 👎
Welcome ’back’ to the hobby 🤗🎼
|
Lovely recording, Halcro; and thanks for obliging me with this comparison.
I must say that I am quite taken aback with the excellence of the sound of the Sony. While you have treated us to several excellent vintage cartridges, for me this is the first that I feel is in the same league as the Palladian. Outstanding! As always, my impressions have mostly to do with tonal and rhythmic characteristics. Listening was done on the usual Stax electrostatic headphones with tube driver.
The tonal characteristics of the Sony are wonderful with a midrange that is more realistically fleshed out and tonally complex than the Palladian which produces a sound that is generally too thin by comparison. Much more of the sound of the body of the harpsichord is evident with the Sony. With the Palladian the harpsichord sounds too thin and “tinkly” and the viola da gamba likewise too thin, almost threadbare, with an unrealistic nasal quality. The Palladian at first gives the impression of revealing a good sense of high frequency air for a greater sense of the room’s acoustic, but in comparison to the Sony this quality becomes an unnatural, squeaky clean, almost electronic sounding halo. With the Sony there is a greater sense of realistic timbre of the individual instruments while the Palladian seems to homogenize their individual and distinctive sounds. As a result there is a greater sense of separation of the instruments in the room’s acoustic while the Palladian seems to “crowd” them together.
The one area where I feel the Palladian MAY have the upper hand is in how it portrays subtle phrasing details. The little rhythmic pushes and pulls by the viola da gamba player at times seem to have just a little bit more energy and musical purpose with the Palladian. Along the same lines, the performance at times sounds ever so slightly slower with the Sony. All this is EXTREMELY subtle and I think it is probably a psychoacoustic effect of the Sony’s more fleshed out and richer tonal qualities. Often, a leaner tonal signature gives the illusion of greater speed.
I loved the sound of the Sony and I think you are justified in your excitement over it. I would love to hear it playing something more complex than this music to see how it handles a full orchestra for instance. A three way shootout between the Sony, Palladian and Decca? 😃
Thanks for another great comparison.
BTW, and forgive me for nitpicking over a musicological detail. This music is technically not Baroque, but rather from or in the style of music from the Renaissance (pre Baroque).
|
I’m glad you like the recording Frogman 😃 And ’technically’.....I didn’t call ’it’ Baroque 🤭 I merely commented that Dover (I believe) loves Baroque music....🤥😜 Hahaha.... I must say that I am quite taken aback with the excellence of the sound of the Sony. I’m thrilled to hear you say this 🥳 Although I didn’t doubt what I was hearing when I proclaimed it "my best and favourite cartridge"....I was a little nervous that you, coming at it from a slightly different angle....may discover some flaws which had eluded me 😥 What wonderful confirmation it is, that the YouTube videos are indeed capable of transmitting the ’Magic’ of such a subtle and ephemeral ’link’ in the audio chain. As a result there is a greater sense of separation of the instruments in the room’s acoustic while the Palladian seems to “crowd” them together. So impressed that you can actually define the "room’s acoustic"...Because that’s where this cartridge redefines (for me) the ability of the audio chain to bring one closer to ’the real thing’. And even I can hear that effect (somewhat diffused) in the videos 👂 I loved the sound of the Sony and I think you are justified in your excitement over it. I would love to hear it playing something more complex than this music to see how it handles a full orchestra for instance. A three way shootout between the Sony, Palladian and Decca? 😃 You’ve got it.....🤗 Thanks again for your ’feedback’ Frogman..... You’ve made me an even happIER man....💍 |
|
@halcro cc @frogman Hi, apologies for tardiness, still waiting for the Baroque !! For the 1st comparison Palladian vs Sony I was quite shocked at what appears to me ( ibuds as usual ) considerably more resolution with the Sony. Is it my imagination or not - compared to the previous clip with the Sony XL88D - the Sony appears to have fleshed out and opened up, like it is still runnning in. If it has been on the shelf for a long period as the suspension limbers up you may have yet more to come. Agree with Frogmans observations, but I would add that the Palladian to my ears homogenises individual instruments and their harmonic structures and overtones merge together, whereas the Sony keeps the individual instruments clearly separated and the individual harmonic structures, overtones of each instrument etc remain attached to those respective instruments ( each retaining its character ). For me the Sony is vastly more transparent, reminding me of what I briefly heard some 30 years ago. Each instrument exists within its own space. The one area where I feel the Palladian MAY have the upper hand is in how it portrays subtle phrasing details. The little rhythmic pushes and pulls by the viola da gamba player at times seem to have just a little bit more energy and musical purpose with the Palladian. Along the same lines, the performance at times sounds ever so slightly slower with the Sony. All this is EXTREMELY subtle and I think it is probably a psychoacoustic effect of the Sony’s more fleshed out and richer tonal qualities. Often, a leaner tonal signature gives the illusion of greater speed. This reminds me of an experience many years ago, when upgrading a cartridge to one that was vastly more transparent I thought it was slow initially. This disappeared in short time, and pondering this I had a theory that because there was so much more information to absorb and process, the brain was tricked into believing the music was longer and slower - sort of like when Formula 1 drivers get into the zone and time slows. I do agree with Frogman there are psychoacoustical effects. I recall listening to a Mercury Living Presence recording on a Phillips reissue and simply did not recognise the performance even though I had the original Mercury pressing. I was convinced the performance on Phillips was ponderous and slow - further investigation revealed the records were identical, but the Phillips reissue had been remixed destroying the ebb and flow of the music. Thanks for posting the comparison - even via video there is much to hear. |
@halcro cc @frogman
Palladian/London Decca Reference/Sony XL
Great music. Beautiful.
In a nutshell firstly comparing the Palladian to the Decca, again ibuds, the Decca wins, most notably I can hear the chest and body of the female choristers, even individually. On the Palladian it sounds like they are singing from the top of their throat - no chest. The Decca more accurately conveys the full weight of the choristers and the room acoustics.
Then comparing the Sony XL88D to the Decca - wow. More transparent and the majesty of the performance and the completeness of the full orchestral spectrum conveyed by the Sony is fabulous. There appears to be more chest/body with the choristers from the Decca, but the vocals from uppermids to top end on the Sony appear far more transparent. As the full orchestra comes in the Sony is simply wonderful, the most complete cartridge for me of the three..
At this point I am done with comparisons - could you please just send me the Sony for Xmas. Now back to the music....
|
PP
Still listening to the Sony whilst I'm posting, will be interesting to hear from Frogman, to my ears I'm hearing far more of the individual tonal colours of individual voices and the orchestral instruments appear far more realistic in tonal colour and timbre with this cartridge.
|
Excellent comments re the Sony/Palladian, Dover. Loved the Formula 1 analogy. We are hearing the same things even if described somewhat differently. Comments on the “three way” forthcoming; a little busy for a day or so. Regards to all. |
Thanks Dover for your brilliant commentary....👍 At this point I am done with comparisons - could you please just send me the Sony for Xmas. Hahaha 🤣 And no......it’s not your imagination! The Sony is a wonderment... Don’t forget....after dozens of ’shoot-outs’ and comparisons with nearly 30 cartridges, the Palladian and DLR have both risen to the top (in our collective opinions)...and sometimes by just very subtle and incremental degrees. In other words...they are the ’Creme de la Creme’...🤗 To then have the XL-88D come along and literally ’blow’ them out of the water is unfathomable 🤯 I have never before, heard a cartridge display such obvious overwhelming superiority...And it’s scary 😳 As I stated in my ’Diamond Cantilever Thread’....how can I now listen to anything else?! But at the same time.....how can I play it AT ALL......knowing with every revolution of the platter that I am slowly ’killing it’ 🥴 Perhaps I should ’digitise’ all my favourite recordings with the Sony to preserve its sound for posterity? "Perfect Sound Forever" 🎼💿🎶 |
@halcro,
Digitizing would be very silly of course, but you now have the perfect excuse to buy the best open reel tape machine you can afford to preserve the Sony sound in all analog.......
|
Hmmm....interesting idea Edgewear 🤔
Thanks...
Any recommendations?
|
No, not really. I only have a humble Nakamichi 700 II cassette recorder. I bought it for nostalgic reasons mostly and while it sounds very nice, it's no match for vinyl playback. For that you probably need to look at 2 track open reel at 38 cm/sec. I've been looking at this from a distance, 'cause this is where my wife draws the line. You have to pick your fights and this isn't one of them.
Anyway, the golden standard of course are professional master recorders like the Studer A-80, some of which have found their way to domestic surroundings. I believe one member here - mikelavigne - even has two, so he should be able to let you in on the intricacies of finding one is good condition. There was a time when these machines sporadically appeared on the open market at reasonable prices, but those days have passed.
There's also the top models of domestic audio, like Revox A77, Technics RS-1700 or even Akai GX-747 (not sure if I have all the numbers correct), but again prices have gone up dramatically for well kept specimen. The reason is probably those darned reviewers who have been plugging open reel tape as the best analog source for some years now, fueling a whole new market of refurbished / redesigned tape machines and 'master tape copies' at very high prices. But with your Sony you could beat them at their game and create your own master tape copies.......
|
I tried, I really tried. I have made my feelings about the Decca known many times previously and I wanted to be sure that no bias crept into my assessment this time around. In previous comparisons I always felt that the Decca was a superior cartridge to the Palladian in the areas that are priorities for me: tonal truthfulness (naturalness) and linearity. In those areas and compared to the Palladian the Decca wins handily once again. Sound staging excellence takes a back seat for me no matter how impressive or fun it may be with another cartridge. Glad to know the Dover agrees with my ranking of the two. Sony/Decca: Awesome recording. Beautiful music. Much of the music was lifted and used in the Broadway musical “Kismet”. The melody heard here in the beginning was used as the melody for the song “Stranger In Paradise” from that musical. Many of the sound staging characteristics that I heard in previous comparisons with the Decca are evident here. The Decca presents a more compact soundstage and a mid/rear of the hall perspective. Very well organized soundstage, but one feels as if sitting about half way toward the back of the hall. The Sony gives a more upfront perspective with larger individual images and a great sense of front to back with images. This is the first time that this quality has been so clear in one of these comparisons. The clarinet clearly and correctly sounds that it is sitting further back than the flute and piccolo. A very impressive sound stage. Likewise, one can hear that the French Horn is sitting further back still and there is a hint of the sound bouncing off the back wall. Great stuff. The Sony is amazing that way and I can only imagine what it sounds like in Halcro’s room. There are a couple of areas where the Decca still wins for me, however. Again, these areas may not be priorities for some and we are comparing two fantastic cartridges. I would be hard pressed to call one cartridge superior to the other and certainly would not say that the Sony “blows the Decca out of the water”. Again, this according to my priorities. Within the Decca’s smaller and less impressive sound stage there is slightly better linearity and with certain instruments just a slightly better sense of tonal truthfulness. All very subtle and, again, may not matter as much to some listeners and may not be evident with some music. Overall, the Sony sounds more fleshed out; perhaps a bit too much so at times. It does give a great sense of the inner texture of instrumental timbres. As does the Decca, but which does it in a more compact way due to the smaller individual images. For me, with the Sony there is a slight thickness in the lower mids/upper bass that is not present with the Decca. Listen to the sound of the bass drum. More powerful with the Sony, but one hears the sound of mallet hitting skin and the way that the drum was tuned a little more clearly with the Decca’s. For me the overall sound with the Sony is just a little corpulent at times compared to the sound with the Decca which is a bit leaner. Personally, I would feel the urge to turn down the volume on the subs one notch; or perhaps lower the xover point just a couple of hertz. Not so with the Decca. I love the sound of the triangle with the Decca. Leaner than with the Sony, but with a beautiful shimmer and long decay. I agree with Dover that the Sony gives a great sense of the grandeur of the music and with his other comments in general. It is very impressive in that regard. Two fantastic cartridges and I would be hard pressed to choose one over the other. Thanks, Halcro for another interesting comparison and tell Princi “nice haircut”. https://youtu.be/HEOEZ-HOWkU |
Thanks, Halcro for another interesting comparison and tell Princi “nice haircut”. 🐶 Glad you and Dover liked the recording Frogman...Decca 😃 You are a 'true-blue' (Australian idiom) Decca (cartridge) 'Fan-Boy'....👏 Not that there's anything wrong with that.... Whilst appreciating all your points (and I think we've agreed on this previously).....I am reasonably confident that were you here, in my room.....you would have to agree on the superiority of the XL-88D 🙃 The sheer size, height and depth of the image created. The pinpoint imaging. The transparency. The shimmering highs and realistic lows. They all combine to create an approximation of 'The Real Thing' more convincing than I've heard since the Avant-Garde Trios with triple-stacked BassHorns at Munich 2017......and THEY did it without the Sony!!! Be that as it may....it's obvious that the quality of 'recording' is more important than EVERYTHING else when it comes to analogue..... You'll notice that in the 140 odd videos I've made for this Thread.....I've used only 'Good' to 'Great' recordings IMO...and haven't repeated any 🤗 Mostly I've eschewed the 'recognised' 'approved' audiophile pressings from Mercury and RCA because I don't agree with their purported 'excellence' 🤥 Deccas are generally more to my liking but there are many other small, independent and often unheard of labels/recording studios which offer rewarding recordings. Richard Strauss is one of my favourite composers and IMO....one of the most underrated 😢....and I've had several recordings released by World Record Club in Australia sourced from HMV and EMI but apparently pressed in Australia from the original first stamper. Listed on the back:- Recording : Lukaskirche, Dresden Producer : David Mottley Engineer : Klaus Struben Recorded in co-production with the former VEB Deutsche Schallplatten, Berlin I bought these in my teens and used to play them on my father's turntable with mono ceramic cartridge 😱 Luckily I didn't ruin them... Until I played them recently on my current System.....I had never appreciated the quality of their recording/mastering/mixing. I'll be interested to see if you agree? RICHARD STRAUSS |
Still following with interest. I'm trying to find time to listen on my digital rig. Will try for tonight. @halcro I have not forgot the headshell issue 😉 |
I would love to hear your system, Halcro; and have no doubt that it sounds fantastic. If I am ever in your neck of the woods I’ll be sure to let you know.
The issue of “superiority” is a tricky one, imo. For me, the respective sounds of, in this case, two truly excellent components get to a point when “superiority” is determined by superiority in specific areas that are sonic priorities; even when the other component does better in areas which are not sonic priorities. I wrote:
**** Sound staging excellence takes a back seat for me no matter how impressive or fun it may be with another cartridge. ****
You wrote:
**** The sheer size, height and depth of the image created.
The pinpoint imaging.
The transparency.
The shimmering highs and realistic lows. ****
As you have stated, or suggested, several times previously and as the above comment seems to prioritize, sound staging is extremely important for you. Less so for me. I am sure that we can agree that the soundstaging with the Decca is at least very good. I think we can then take those considerations off the table for the sake of this discussion. Tonal considerations then become what determines for me which is “superior”. Based on this and previous comparisons I would say that you prefer a sound with a lower midrange/upper bass range that is a little more prominent than would be my preference. Nothing wrong with that at all. I feel that even a little too much prominence in that range, and especially if not well integrated and tonally consistent with the midrange obscures midrange nuance which is the most important aspect of sound for me. This is the reason that I continue to suffer the bass inadequacies of my beloved Stax F81’s. I have not heard a more tonally truthful midrange.
The sound with the Decca pushes some of the same buttons for me. There is something simply tonally correct about its sound in the context of your system as heard this way. Perhaps “in situ” it would be different, but my priorities would still be the same. If you ever tire of the Decca, feel free to send it to me; I think Dover already has dibs on the Sony ☺️. What an amazing collection of cartridges you have. Congrats!
I’ll give the Strauss a listen shortly. One of my very favorite composers and certainly not under appreciated in my book.
Best wishes.
|
Since finding my 'Holy Grail' of cartridges ( SONY XL-88D)....I wondered whether or not I would be able to listen to all the other cartridges I have collected and culled over the last 12 years...👂 As I intimated in my last Post....the MOST important link in the analogue chain, is the quality of the recording, mastering, engineering and pressing of the actual disc. After discovering the superlative quality of the series of recordings of the Complete Works of Richard Strauss with Rudolf Kempe conducting the Dresden State Orchestra in 1973 released by EMI and HMV in 1974....I bought every record I could find on Discogs for pittances. I'm done with purchasing new re-releases offered for $30-60 with warps, surface noice, clicks and pops and inferior sound to the original releases 😡 Whatever you can hear on this video, is nothing compared to the quality filling my room. Dynamic performances of massed orchestras in full flight are the hardest to both record and playback with the realism of the 'live' event. That's why you rarely hear any exhibitor at a HiFi Show attempt it... These recordings (by VEB Deutsche Schallplatten Berlin DDR) come closer than almost any I have heard. Although the music of Richard Strauss is not to everyone's taste....if you couldn't be happy with the sound from these recordings played with a vintage MM Cartridge....I think you may be too fussy 🤗 RICHARD STRAUSS |
Good find, Halcro. Kempe was surely one of the great Strauss conductors. You should also try his way with Wagner and Brahms. And HMV did some historic recordings behind the iron curtain in the 70's. Another high point was Karajan's Meistersinger, also with the Dresden orchestra.
For me, Strauss' greatest instrumental piece is Don Quichote, a Cello Concerto in all but name. Paul Tortelier as soloist on the Dresden set is fantastic, but Kempe's recording with Pierre Fournier more than a decade earlier with the Berlin Philharmonic (also on HMV) is perhaps even better. Both performances by these great cellists are masterly - but very different - studies into the Don's complex character. The tenderness, the melancholy, the lunacy. Marvelous stuff!
|
Great comments, edgewear. I share you appreciation of Strauss’ “Don Quixote”. Fantastic work. Tone poem which, as you say, is practically a cello concerto; although the role of the viola (Sancho Panza) in this work is not to be underestimated. One of many examples of Strauss’ genius. Hard for me to name a best Strauss composition since there are so many great ones. I would also point to “An Alpine Symphony”, “Till Eulenspiegels”, “Ein Heldenleben” as particularly good examples of his orchestration genius, And, of course, his operas; for me, “Elektra” in particular.
Halcro, being a fan of Decca recordings, if you don’t own it, the Decca “Elektra” with Solti/Vienna is fantastic and available as a reissue from Speakers Corner. Hair raising music. I am also particularly fond of his “Four Last Songs”. Schwarzkopf’s recording on EMI is fantastic. If forced to pick a favorite Strauss work, this might be it.
Regards.
|
My previous message prompted me to play that record again and what do you know, I had the names mixed up. The earlier BPO recording is also with Paul Tortelier. Oeps.....
I played both versions and my memory that they're quite different still makes sense, thank goodness. It just goes to show how a decade can change an artist's interpretation, in this case both the cellist and the conductor. Fascinating.
|
Great suggestions frogman, the Four Last Song by Schwarzkopf and Szell would be one of my desert island picks. Solti’s Elektra too (yup, I’d need a pretty big island...). But the original ED2 label Decca pressing is actually cheaper than the Speakers Corner reissue and probably sounds much better.
Halcro, if you ARE a Decca fan (and which classic music fan isn’t?) you should really hear ’An Alpine Symphony’ by Mehta. A sonic spectacular in the best sense of the word. This guy had a great tenure with the LAPO, yielding many excellent recordings. Most of these are from the later ’narrow band’ label era that ’pressing snobs’ usually sneeze at, so they’re available at very modest prices. His ’Ein Heldenleben and ’Don Quichote’ are also very good.
While we’re at it, I’ll even go on record saying that his Mahler 3 is THE best sounding orchestral recording in my entire collection. You won’t believe what you’ll hear.
|
Late to the party. The Barodin Symphony No.2 shootout. First off, your system sounds great especially with my upgraded subwoofer. Second, the Sony really does excel. I listened to the LDR first and it sounded good but the subdued triangle near the opening set up its downfall to the Sony. Sure enough, the D was more detailed and made more sense of the music. |
Thanks for all the great recommendations guys 😃
And welcome back Noromance....we have missed your commentary.
And your results with the Yamamoto HS-4 Carbon Fiber headshell still baffle me 😳 |
|
Fantastic thread @halcro ! Thank you v much for all your effort and sharin your experience, really invaluabe!
DLR has been long on my radar and your findings only heat up my interest. I'd use it on my EMT 930 with silver wired FR64s and Orsonic AV-101 headshell (~16g), connected by AQ Leopard silver cable. Any experience on how DLR mates with silver wires and the Orsonic headshell?
Thank you in advance,b
|
Thanks for the kind words Bydlo 😃 I appreciate hearing that some folks are finding this Thread informative... Wow...an EMT 930 and FR-64S with Silver Wiring 🤩 You're really 'cooking with gas'...🔥 I also have the FR-64S with 'Silver Inside Leads' and the LDR sounds very happy with them. The ORSONIC HEADSHELL however....is a different 'kettle of fish'. I tried many cartridges on mine before selling it, as I could physically see the headshell twisting and contorting whilst playing heavy modulated passages. Contrary to the commonly propagated claim, that the FR-S3 is too heavy....I have found this to be an AUDIOPHILE MYTH, with my seven S3 SHELLS being the very best to use on, not only the FR-64S and FR-66S.....but also other arms, as demonstrated in the two previous 'Shootouts' in this Thread. What amplifiers and speakers do own to go with your first-rate front end? Regards |
Hi @halcro & thank you for the kind words and explanations :) It is interesting what you write about the Orsonic, here is a guy who measured a number of headshells and claims it is one of the most rigid: http://korfaudio.com/blog51While we are at vibrations, I have one somewhat non-orthodox comment regarding your DLR/88D/Palladian shootout: Your both TT's are very close to the speakers, making them potentially prone to strong structure and air borne vibrations. The Victor, carrying 88D in the test had a benefit of an active isolation platform (effectively cutting all vibs below at least 200Hz). The other TT, carrying DLR did not have that. What I can clearly hear from your videos (iphone+iphone earbuds) is that 88D is more transparent, open, and direct and DLR, however surprising, more recessed and somewhat muddier, less convincing. I've heard many times the effect of a proper suspension (have a small company doing that) and it is often quite similar to the 88D/DLR difference in your videos. So my suspicion is that some part of the DLR/88D difference re the transparency might be due to the lack of the suspension below the Raven (not to mention of course the difference between the TT's). My 2c :) Cheers, b PS I listen on Stax headphones, mostly on O2MkI driven by Blue Hawaii SE amp. |
Ry Cooder sounded better on the Raven. The music was more coherent. The Victor was brighter but it was a mess.
Dire Straits however was the opposite. Dull and plodding on the Raven, lively and musical on the Victor. |
Hi Bydlo, I’ve subscribed to Korfaudio for a while so I’m aware of his results with the Orsonic headshell..... It was this result in fact that caused me to doubt the ’science’ behind his methodology and testing procedures. Apart from the fact that his group of headshells are all aluminium and third-rate (no wood, plastic, carbon fibre, ceramic).... his TESTING PROCEDURE is suspect to say the least. As he himself states.... Usually, an actual signal being picked up from a rotating LP is the best way to excite the resonances in the playback system. After all, it duplicates the real use scenario almost perfectly.
However, it is impossible to truly separate the headshell’s performance from that of a tonearm while the headshell remains attached. So instead.....he clamps the headshell in a vise and strikes it with a HAMMER 😂!!!!!! Enough said...... What I can clearly hear from your videos (iphone+iphone earbuds) is that 88D is more transparent, open, and direct and DLR, however surprising, more recessed and somewhat muddier, less convincing. I agree with you 🤗 However, the differences are not caused by Airborne Sound Transmission (which can virtually be disregarded in the real world). This can be proven by listening with headphones and comparing the sound with the speakers at different volume levels. Structure-borne Sound Transmission is the single most damaging phenomenon to vinyl playback but suspended decks cannot protect against the 1-10 Hz Structure-Borne resonances. I have listened to the LDR on all three tonearms around the DD Victor TT-101 and the ’sound’ in my room (and headphones) is similar to what you are hearing on the Raven. Frogman however, and many other listeners to the videos, are quite impressed with the sound from the LDR 😃 |
Hi Halcro, Thank you for your explanations. Contrary to you I feel quite ok with KorfAudio mesurement techniques. Impulse excitation is a completely standard method in vibroanalysis (the usual knuckle test is a simple version of it ;) That his results may not correlate with listening is another story of course. BTW, the weirdest hammers I’ve seen where in vibration labs - so called impact hammers with coax cable sticking out of them :) One of the basic tools. Do I see correctly that you use Yamamoto ebony with LDR? There is another A’gon fellow reporting better results using LDR with Yamamoto than (the lighter) Orsonic: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/arche-headshell-with-london-reference-cartridge-fantastic-res... Structure-borne Sound Transmission is the single most damaging phenomenon to vinyl playback but suspended decks cannot protect against the 1-10 Hz Structure-Borne resonances. I’m sure your active Herzan or Accurion does :) I have listened to the LDR on all three tonearms around the DD Victor TT-101 and the ’sound’ in my room (and headphones) is similar to what you are hearing on the Raven.
Frogman however, and many other listeners to the videos, are quite impressed with the sound from the LDR 😃 Ok, thank you, so the TT and suspension is not much of a factor here - seems 88D is just inherently more transparent than LDR. BTW, I am myself too quite impressed with LDR and considering it for my system is what has brought me here :) But that 88D is in your videos more impressive for my ears. If only I could get one.. Cheers,b |
Thanks for the Link Bydlo.... I hadn't seen that Thread although in many Threads on many Forums, it's surprising how much of a consensus there is, for the FR-64s/66s tonearms being the best arms for the Deccas (particularly the LDR). You're correct that I did have my LDR mounted in the YAMAMOTO HS-1AS EBONY HEADSHELL. Here you can see it mounted on the DV-507/II around the Victor Direct Drive. It sounded fine in that headshell but sounded even better in the YAMAMOTO HS-4S CARBON FIBER HEADSHELL which is where it remains. I hadn't heard of the 'match' with the Arche Headshell so I might have to investigate....🤔 And yes.....the SONY XL88D is so good, it makes even the LDR take a 'backseat' 🪑 But stay tuned....... There may be a LOMC cartridge I have that cost $250 NOS, which could come close to the 88D 🤫 |
Ry Cooder sounded better on the Raven. The music was more coherent. The Victor was brighter but it was a mess.
Dire Straits however was the opposite. Dull and plodding on the Raven, lively and musical on the Victor. Interesting comments Noromance....🤔 I wonder if anyone else also hears it like this? I personally, prefer the WE-8000/ST tonearm on both samples...🙃 |
Encouraged by the positive results yielded with the heavy FR-S3 headshell on the SAEC WE8000/ST tonearm, I wondered if EVERY cartridge would benefit from this headshell 🤔 An unexpected discovery in my listening experiences has been the JMAS MIT 1 LOMC Cartridge which was a slightly modified Coral mc81 from the late '80s with the first true VdH diamond fitted on beryllium cantilever available in the States. MIT 1 ON CARBON FIBER HEADSHELLMIT 1 ON FR-S3 HEADSHELLPerhaps slightly unfair comparison due to the increased volume level on the S3 together with the better recording technique....but it seems to sound better on the S3 headshell? MIT ON CARBON FIBER HEADSHELLMIT ON FR-S3 HEADSHELLFairer comparison here where I'm struggling to hear much difference between the two...? Perhaps Dover could be enticed to see if he can hear any.....? All help and comments greatly appreciated 😃 |
Halcro -
I am not sure if you are having me on.
There is significantly more surface noise with the carbon fiber headshell.
It is possible the VTA is not the same on both shells.
Listening to both this is what I hear ( on ear buds ) -
On violins with the carbon fiber you can hear more of the acoustic recording space of the whole orchestra, whereas with the FRS3 the leading violin is crisper and cleaner, more vibrant but with less acoustical information. In some parts the cf on violins becomes quite screachy, compared to the FRS3 less so.
From the midrange down to mid bass the FRS3 appears to have better articulation, and again fuller and more vibrant. The carbon fiber sounds a bit congealed through the upper bass to midrange. On some passages the cf presents a clearer leading edge in the mid bass, but the more vibrant FRS3 conveys better tempo and clearer presentation of space in the lower end to my ears, and ultimately more transparency in this region.
For me the FRS3 is more musically listenable because the better presentation of tempo in the lower ranges underpins the musical flow and enjoyment.
How does this compare with your in room experience.
As an aside, when you use a heavy headshell, you will be altering the counterweight to compensate for the increased mass at the headshell end. The end result is that you are adding mass loading to the knife edge bearings, so the changes to sound will be a combo of cartridge/headshell resonances, inceased effective mass and most importantly increased load on the jewelled knife edge bearings. I know that some Japanese audio fetishists would add mass over the bearing on unipivots/knife edge bearings to improve bottom end without altering the effective mass - like dumbells each side of the bearings.
|
Halcro -
I am not sure if you are having me on. I am a bit Dover...😛 There is significantly more surface noise with the carbon fiber headshell.
It is possible the VTA is not the same on both shells. Could be VTA but more likely Azimuth, as the cartridge appeared visibly askew in the Yamamoto. I turned the headshell to level the cartridge but the noise was still there. Don't know why the same is not the case with the FR-S3....? I think the VdH stylus is rather fussy 🥴 In some parts the cf on violins becomes quite screachy, compared to the FRS3 less so. Quite noticeably in fact... For me the FRS3 is more musically listenable because the better presentation of tempo in the lower ranges underpins the musical flow and enjoyment. Perfect summary for my in-room experience Dover.... Your comments on the "dumbell" effect of the heavy headshell and the need for the counterweight to move back to compensate are interesting. Could explain why the FR-S3 headshell brings the knife-edge SAEC tonearm to 'life'...? Thanks for the valuable feedback 👍 |
@halcro
Thanks.
My suspicion would be that the extra mass anchors the sound a little more whereas the metal headshell imparts a little more of the vibrancy.
I did notice the worst mistracking appeared on the left channel.
Van den hul styli do tend to be very fine and more twitchy on VTA etc, even his early work. I have recently installed a Van den hul Colibri on a Kuzma 4 Point 11 and can hear vast repeatable changes to soundstage with as little as 0.1mm change in height at the back of the arm.
Cheers.
|
One of the reasons I began this Thread was to demonstrate ’sonically’ that differences in the ways cartridges present music (ie. sound)...are not always related to their typology (MM, MC, MI) or cost. Nor is it related to their genealogy (new vs old) (current vs vintage). When I began collecting vintage cartridges about 12 years ago (both MM and LOMC).....I was astonished at how much better most of them sounded, compared to the current ones I had heard 😳. At that time, they were also cheap in comparison to the ’new’.....These days they have become rather more expensive as audiophiles have cottoned on....🥴 For those who have been following this Thread......many YouTube ’Shoot-outs’ and comparisons have resulted in a consensus that the current $10,000 AS Palladian LOMC proved itself one of the best performers in my collection of 40-50 cartridges.That was until I obtained my Holy Grail Cartridge....the 40 year old Vintage Sony XL-88D (Diamond Cantilever). Concurrently with this event.....I discovered that by using the heavy Fidelity Research S3 Headshell on my SAEC WE-8000/ST Tonearm, it transformed this arm to possibly my ’best’ 🙃 Five years ago, I discovered an (unknown to me) vintage 1981 LOMC Cartridge JMAS MIT-1 which I thought was one of the best I had heard. An A’Gon Member from the Netherlands made me aware that a stash of NOS MIT-1s was being liquidated for $250 each and I bought the last one 😝. Based on the Coral MC-81which had a Shibata Stylus on Beryllium Cantilever....John Marovski (an audio dealer in NY) got Coral to use a VdH Stylus on Beryllium Cantilever for his MIT-1. Can a 40 year old LOMC Cartridge which cost $250 in NOS condition 5 years ago, compete with a current $10,000 Uber LOMC Cartridge? I think it can.....Dover might tell me if I’m wrong.......🤥 AS PALLADIAN LOMC CARTRIDGE
JMAS MIT-1 LOMC CARTRIDGE |
Cheapish headphones on PC. One listen quick A-B.
AS has a fuller bass, with more room-filling power and drive. JMAS seems to have a cleaner midband, more transparent and less congested upper bass. Listen to the French horn? around 5 mins in to hear what I mean. The JMAS sounds more exciting, somewhat ragged, and a little less veiled too. |
Thanks for the feedback Noromance.... JMAS seems to have a cleaner midband, more transparent and less congested upper bass. I agree....but how much of that we can attribute to the DD Victor over the Belt-Drive Raven, I don't know? But the fact that we can even have this comparison with a 40 year-old $250 cartridge over a megabuck current Uber LOMC is pause for reflection....🤔 Let's face it.....there have been no technical advances or revolutions in cartridge design during the last 30 years, despite what the manufacturers and reviewers like to tell you...🤥 In fact, if anything, there has been a 'loss' of material and technical know-how that precludes current-day cartridge designers from even matching the designs of the Golden Age of Analogue. The loss of Beryllium as a cantilever material for example..... The loss of tapered-tubes (or even rods) for cantilevers.... The loss of composite cantilevers as in the Sony XL-55 and XL-88.. The loss of the technical (or economic) ability to create a cantilever out one single piece of gemstone as in the vintage Sony XL-88D for another... Instead of technical and intellectual advancements these days....cartridge designers and manufacturers find the only 'point-of-difference' they can offer, is more complex and costly cartridge BODIES such as the various stone-bodies of the Koetsus and the fancy-shaped titanium bodies of the Lyras, Ortofons and Acoustical Systems ostensibly all designed to prevent internal cartridge resonances 😂 But no-one has ever proven that these internal resonances even exist, let alone quantify them. And despite the fact that the great cartridges of the past (which outperform the current fancy-bodied ones) often have plain plastic, boxy bodies......Sony XL-88, Sony XL-88D, London Decca Reference, JMAS MIT-1, Fidelity Research FR-7f and FR-7fz 🤪 No cartridge design warrants the cost of $10,000, $12,000, $15,000, $20,000 today unless it contains one-piece solid diamond stylus/cantilever. The fancy exotic-looking stone bodies of the Koetsus (Tiger-Eye, Onyx Platinum, Jade Platinum, Azule, Rhodonite, Coralstone, Blue Lace) are cynical marketing strategies aimed at wealthy audiophile dilettantes.
They do nothing for the 'sound' of the cartridges other than 'colour' them 😡 'Normal' Audiophiles🙃....and reviewers, generally don't have the use of two turntables, 6 tonearms and 40-50 cartridges (old and new) to enable direct listening comparisons. I hope that this Thread provides the platform to actually 'hear' the differences between multiple cartridges on various tonearms so that everyone can decide for themselves whether 'new' is better than 'old'. And for those who think that YouTube videos are limited to MP3 quality sound..... YouTube currently streams in 128 kbps ACC in an MP4 container when you select the Normal quality. Premium subscribers can also select the High quality, which streams at 256 kbps AAC (equal quality to GPM's 320 CBR kbps). |
Holy crap that's an expensive record! |
I never gave those Koetsus much attention, but your links made me take a closer look at their pricing as well as their specs. It appears they’re all the same cartridges with the same silver coils, platinum magnets and boron cantilevers (not even diamond cantilevers at these prices). And yet the price differential between the ’cheapest’ Onyx and dearest Blue Lace is $5000!!!!! Talk about cynical. I almost feel sorry for the folks who buy into this nonsense.
|
The original record is certainly expensive Dhcod...... I can assure you I didn't pay the prices asked for these 🤯 About 10 years ago, they did a reissue in a TRIPLE BOXED SET which was reasonably priced. It appears that supply of this set may no longer be available, however you could pick up some bargain copies at MUSICSTACK or the complete reissued set at DISCOGS. Good luck... |
And yet the price differential between the ’cheapest’ Onyx and dearest Blue Lace is $5000!!!!! Isn't it an outrage Edgewear....🤬 At least Koetsu have a neat formula for launching new and evermore expensive models......change the stone-type 🤗 But what about all the other manufacturers....? Having managed to ramp-up the prices for second-rate MC cartridges...how do you justify even higher prices for the new MODELS? Those well-heeled audiophiles who have bought their $15,000 Uber cartridges believing them to be the 'best', are not about to 'downsize' to a $10,000 cartridge next year. They believe that higher performance comes with higher prices... So to justify even higher prices and tempt this hapless group of willing audiophiles, the manufacturers are desperately adding diamond cantilevers (Ortofon Century and Anna Diamond) and other 'gimmicks' whilst being unable to develop any real progressive intellectual design solutions. You can fool some of the people....... |
I agree....but how much of that we can attribute to the DD Victor over the Belt-Drive Raven, I don't know? Possibly more than you'd think. That's why I'd love to hear the LDR on the JVC. I listened to a Raven for hours at AXPONA and the system had a warm beguiling sound but not what I would call clear or incisive. Was it the big tube amps or the table? I must look it up and see what gear was being used. |
|
If anyone heard any differences with the Signet in the carbon-fiber headshell over the heavy FR-S3 headshell.....you've got better ears than I have 👂
Both in my listening room and over multiple listens to the video....the cartridge sounds identical to me in both shells 🙌
This was a little surprising after hearing the clear improvements with all the LOMC Cartridges that I tried.
The Sony XL55, Sony XL88, Sony XL88D, JMAS MIT-1 all sounded clearly superior with the heavy S3 headshell in the WE-8000/ST tonearm, so just why this did not occur with the MM is a mystery...🤔
Of course we can always postulate 'theories' such as 'higher compliance' but why this should affect the result is pure speculation.
I think this demonstrates how little we really know of the 'science' behind our hobby.
The only maxim we can apply is....try everything and LISTEN 🤗
To attempt to predict the 'sound' of anything based purely on specifications or 'accepted wisdom' is foolhardy.
That's why I have only one tonearm with a 'fixed' headshell and will never buy another......
The differences that come with changing headshells is mind-blowing 🤯 and is just as important to maximising the performance of any cartridge as VTF, VTA, Azimuth and Antiskate.
Those audiophiles who demand tonearms with non-detachable headshells are merely depriving themselves of one of the easiest paths to Audio Nirvana 😎 |
I did some quick listening to both with the Strauss on the LCa. The FRS3 sounded slightly cleaner and more detailed if not a little thinner and edgier. Is it bakelite or hard plastic? The CF had better bass and control but lacked sparkle.
|
