Hear my Cartridges....🎶

@halcro
Thanks for the feedback, I’m pleased my rantings saved you from potential disaster. The Dynavector Karat Nova series are obstensibly defunct. I know from personal contacts directly with the factory that they ran out of Karat Nova 13D generators for rebuilds around 2002. I was graced with good fortune some years later when they agreed to rebuild mine for the third time on a one off basis. This has been great because the last rebuild they did for me sported a microridge stylus which has pushed the performance/transparency way beyond my Ikeda Kiwame & Decca levels. It’s sad because when this goes - its done. Unfortunately I have noticed several Karat Novas for sale in recent years but they have clearly had a non standard cantilever/stylus. The telltale sign is usually the cantilever which sticks out a mile compared to the original which is tiny and is barely seen below the body. I have been contacted by some folk to verify Karat Nova’s and have followed up with Dynavector directly in Japan but they are too embarrassed to even answer. Beware the "prototypes" being sold on Yahoo Japan.

The diamond cantilever on the Karat Novas has a Y shaped yolk at the end into which the stylus is glued. It is possible to retip a Karat Nova but the chances of the yolk breaking when removing the original tip is very high.

The Sony XL88D is in the same category, one piece diamond cantilever cannot be retipped.

Final Audio also commissioned a version of the XL88D from Yoshimura, there were 2 iterations =, one a full diamond cantilever/tip the other a 1/2 length diamond cantilever/tip mounted in an aluminium sleeve.

Like you I am puzzled by the FR-7fc model being the most expensive FR7 yet a "conical" stylus. Syntax has one and rates it at the top ofthe FR tree. It appears to have been targeted at the vintage record collector. I know that Isamu Ikeda was a bit like Van den Hul in that he produced a lot of one off variants of the FR7 for record collectors or specific musical tastes. I have seen for example FR7’s optimised spicifically for early stereo Jazz. Sugano likewise.

I have been following your cartridge postings - they are great. I have the Glanz MFG61 and was interested in getting a flavour of the 610 you have.

Re the 3012 - yes I have been folowing that thread you referred to. They like the SME3012R which has a higher mass stainess steel arm tube compared to the 3012 Series 1 & II. In my view the SME has a charm and musical presentation that is compelling but to my ears is not the most transparent arm available by some margin. So if someone prefers its musically to other arms I would not disagree, however I like to hear everything possible in the groove. One of the issues with vintage knife bearing arms is that due to the offset angle of the cartridge, and the non offset vertical knifebearings, the forces on the cantilever try to rotate the arm, effectively trying to lift one side of the 2 knife bearings. Added mass helps. Ikeda, the designer of your FR7fz eschewed the use of unipivots for his low compliance cartridges and knife edge bearing tonearms along with jewelled bearings which he regarded as fragile sounding.
I have a 3012, - it sits on the shelf in my study.

The previous owner of my Final TT had many arms for review in the 80’s. I know he tried the SAEC407/23 and found it to be lightweight sounding, lacking bass definition on a wide range of top end cartridges - both high and low compliance. Of the cartridges tried the Sony XL88D was the least affected by this wispy attribute. It is a medium compliance MC cartridge. I have not heard the 8000. You might want to try your XL88 on your SAEC.

I am a great believer in arm/cartridge combinations as a unit - hence why I still have Dynavector/FR64S/Naim Aro/Eminent Technology ET2 arms and several other arms which I keep in rotation, simply because finding the best arm for each cartidge I have is one of those itches you have to scratch.

Thanks for the clarification on the FR7 Dover....
I didn't know of the FR-7fc but note that is has a CONICAL STYLUS instead of the LINE CONTACT of the FR-7fz....
Have you ever heard one?
What about it do you think, could make it different to the FR-7f and FR-7fz?
And why.....if this was the 'ultimate' FR-7.....did Ikeda-san produce the FR-7fz as his final Fidelity Research design?

I've heard the Sony XL-88D in direct comparison to the XL-88....
And I was tempted to acquire a Karat Nova 13D after reading your thoughts years ago.....but luckily, your warnings about the particular sample I had in mind, saved me from that possible disaster 😱

Of course I tried the PALLADIAN IN THE FR-66S and it did sound slightly better than in the WE8000.....but that's primarily because the FR-66S is the better arm 🤗
Contrary to your thoughts on knife-edge bearings handling the high-energy of LOMCs.....I find that the WE8000 is more comfortable with LOMCs than with the high-compliance MMs.
There is an interesting development in the 'uber High-End' with its adoption of the vintage double knife-edge bearing SME3012R tonearm as the BEST arm for all LOMC cartridges.
Read this THREAD from What's the Best Forum and you can see where users prefer it to even the SAT tonearm....and that's with modern LOMCs like the Colibri XPP, AirTight Supreme, My Sonic Labs Sig. Gold, Lyra Atlas and Etna  and all the stone-bodied Koetsus.

Thuchan loves the double knife-edge bearing SAEC 506/16 for his LOMCs and loves his WE8000 even more...😎

I re-listened to the first track with the Palladian and agree that 2/3 the way in....there appears to be distortion but I think it's mic overload or at one point....it's my fingers touching the microphone 🙃

After the earlier FR-7 and FR-7f, the final version FR-7fz came with an advanced nude LINE-CONTACT diamond pressure-fitted to an aluminium cantilever and cost an incredible 120,000 Yen in 1984.

The FR7fz was only 80,000 yen in 84. By comparison my Dynavector Karat Nova 13D was 150,000 yen in 83 as was the Sony XL88D, both of which have been auditioned on my TT. The Karat Nova 13D remains my reference. The most expensive FR7 was the "f/c" at 100,000 yen.
http://20cheaddatebase.web.fc2.com/needie/NDFR/FR-7fz.html

I think the Palladian is a mismatch with the SAEC WE8000 - it is at the top end on the recommended tracking weight and cartridge weight, too much energy for knife edge bearings. Would be interesting to hear the Palladian in the same arm as the FR7fz, ie on the  FR66.  There appears to be mistracking on the 1st album with the WE8000/Palladian combo.

I managed to acquire an unused FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7fz LOMC cartridge from 1984.
This NOS FR-7fz is the 'Holy Grail' for those who appreciate the FR-7 Series of LOMCs designed by the legendary Ikeda-san.
As Art Dudley wrote...

Way back in 1967, Ikeda-san founded Fidelity Research, a celebrated Japanese firm that left its mark on the world of phonography with its FR-64 series of tonearms and FR-1 and MC-202 cartridges. (One could say that Isamu Ikeda has left another, more personal mark, inasmuch as many of Japan's well-known cartridge builders have served him as apprentices.) 

After the earlier FR-7 and FR-7f, the final version FR-7fz came with an advanced nude LINE-CONTACT diamond pressure-fitted to an aluminium cantilever and cost an incredible 120,000 Yen in 1984.

The Acoustic Systems PALLADIAN LOMC cartridge was designed by Dietrich Brakemeier as a 'tribute' to the FR-7fz and it will be interesting to hear what progress has been made in MC cartridge design in the last 35 years....🧐

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7fz

AS PALLADIAN 

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7fz
(Sorry for overloading the mic in places)

AS PALLADIAN
(Sorry for overloading the mic in places)

1:45 “reach”, “broken”
2:07 “price”
2:30 “Grande”
2:47 “flows”
2:49 “like”

All spots where there is obvious distortion (break up).  In between those spots it often sounds as if on the verge of break up.  From 2:50-3:42 it is worse with the very worst spot at 3:42 on “border line”.   It’s not subtle at all and I must say that this level of distortion makes the differences between the cartridges pretty irrelevant for me.

Surprisingly, the highest level and frequency of distortion is heard with the Palladian.  I agree with noromance’s descriptions of the sound of the cartridges and the differences between the Palladian and the Decca observed in their previous comparison apply.  Some of the qualities of the Palladian favor this type of studio recording giving it a more expansive and impressive soundstage.  But the distortion makes those qualities seem moot.  

The vinyl does sound damaged especially on the right channel. Decca sounds the most live and immediate with good depth although it really picks up that surface noise. MC almost sounds like there's dirt on the stylus. Azden is in between.

Interesting comments Frogman......
My apologies for leaving the glass doors open for the Azden so that the AC unit could be heard. I closed them for the Palladian 🙃

Interesting comments on the record quality because I have some friends who insist on hearing this track every time they come over....🤔
This may be an ideal time to hear what the DLR can do with the same track......?
Princi has made his decision...🤗

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI Cartridge 

**** Therefore....in my system......there are cartridges which have more ’shimmering’ highs.
There are cartridges which have more ’air’ and ’transparency’.
There are cartridges which go convincingly lower.
There are cartridges which project a wider and deeper ’soundstage’ and yes.......there are cartridges which manage to give me more ’magic’ and ’emotion’. ****

I have no doubt. However, with the possible exception of the “magic and emotion”, I’m not sure what any of that has to do with sounding better. Moreover, “magic and emotion” has much to do with our individual tastes and preferences for “more air”, “more bass”, etc. I always thought that the whole point of HEA was to try and replicate the sound of live music as closely as possible. HP of TAS fame always pointed out the danger of comparing components to each other as opposed to the sound of live. I realize some thought of him as an pompous blowhard, but the man had great ears and a great methodology, imo.

Azden/Palladian:

**** Aaaaahhh 😱....
Unlistenable!!!
Bass was bloated and ill-defined, treble was screechy and distorted and the mids were flat, recessed and boring.
There was no soundstage (either side to side or back to front) and no air or transparency.
In a sentence....it was one of the worst sounds I had heard from any cartridge in my system 🤬 ****

There has to be something wrong with your sample of this cartridge. What you describe is nothing I have ever experienced; far from it. What I do see from the pic of the side view is that your P mount adaptor must be misshapen. Perhaps the result of overtightening the mounting screws? Look at the cartridge pins relative to the tone arm tube or top of the headshell; the pins should be in line with or parallel to them. As is, you will experience major negative VTA; which explains the need to raise the back of the arm so much.

I must say that this comparison, unfortunately, is the most difficult so far, because the sound, with both cartridges, is by far the worst that I have heard from your system. I have to assume that it is the recording that is poor (I don’t know it at all) and not the issues with the mounting of the Azden, because things aren’t any better overall with the Palladian. There is a lot of obvious distortion that sounds like tracking distortion or that the vinyl is shot; particularly on the vocals when it is joined by the strings and others. Not good at all. Almost incredibly (price difference), the Azden seems to do a better job of tracking than the P since considerably less distortion is heard with it.

The other problem is what sounds like the air conditioner in the room is on. I can’t believe that what sounds like obvious white noise is on the recording. Very distracting and it actually sounds like the AC was turned up even more when the Azden was playing. If the noise is on the record, that is one noisy record.

Thanks for this latest comparison, but......

Sorry for adding to the frustration 😖

So I've had the most frustrating 'listening' week...and I blame Frogman ☝️
I've had the AZDEN YM P50VL for 10 years but when I first tried it then....it didn't 'make the cut' and so ended up collecting dust in a drawer.
At Frogman's suggestion....I mounted it in the DV-507/II whilst I admired its NUDE LINE CONTACT DIAMOND and sat back to listen....
Aaaaahhh 😱....
Unlistenable!!!
Bass was bloated and ill-defined, treble was screechy and distorted and the mids were flat, recessed and boring.
There was no soundstage (either side to side or back to front) and no air or transparency.
In a sentence....it was one of the worst sounds I had heard from any cartridge in my system 🤬
But I persisted, hoping that 'break-in' might save the day...?
I tried adjusting VTA up and down...I altered the VTF up and down...I tried loading it from 10K Ohm to 60K Ohm and tried capacitance values from 70pF to 430pF....and all combinations and permutations.
Nothing seemed to help...so I kept playing the miserable thing for day after day...🥵
One day, I raised the VTA to the maximum setting that the DV-507/II allows 'On-The-Fly' so that the arm seemed to slope downward severely from the pivot....and this produced the most tolerable sound to date.
So as an experiment....I used an Allen Key to physically raise the arm structure within it's VTA adjustment 'pod'.
This now allowed an even HIGHER elevation at the Pivot (which no cartridge had ever required) and suddenly.....there was improvement 👋
So I raised it even further 'on-the-fly' whilst listening to the results...and at a certain point....it all clicked 🤗
If you look at the SIDE-VIEW of the mounted cartridge, you can see the severe slope downwards of the front with the stylus tip further below this. Added to the thickness of the top metal adapter for the P-Mount body....this places the stylus tip far below any cartridge I've owned and thus, thinking a HORIZONTAL headshell or tonearm is a nice 'starting point' for SRA......is a recipe for disaster.

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge

AZDEN YM P50VL MM Cartridge

Thank you Frogman, for taking the time and trouble to write your last Post.
It made me realise that there is perhaps nothing wrong with my hearing...it's just that we all have different priorities and preferences.
It dawned on me that, whereas a musician is obviously concerned about INSTRUMENTAL accuracy, tonality and 'realism'.....those qualities don't 'consciously' factor in my assessments and appreciation.
Mainly because I don't KNOW the differences in sound of individual instruments and therefore don't know whether what I hear reproduced, is 'accurate' or true to 'live'.
I do of course, know what 'live' music sounds like but again.....it doesn't matter to me if the saxophone's reed is worn or split, or if the Steinway Concert Grand is more suited to the venue than the Bosendorfer the pianist has selected to play....

My priorities begin with the ability of a 'system' (and its parts) to reproduce all the qualities contained within the grooves of records I am intimately familiar with.
Firstly, the 'balance' of the frequencies without any unnatural emphases.
Secondly, the 'quality' of the individual frequencies.....
How extended are the 'highs', how deeply (and convincingly) do the lower registers go.
How 'realistic' and satisfying is the midrange....this is a 'sine qua non' for me and eliminates many cartridges, tonearms, phonostages, amplifiers and speakers from my 'orbit'.
Next in importance for me is 'transparency'....
Is there 'air' around the instruments (as there is in reality) and is there 'depth'.
Do the extreme highs 'shimmer' and decay in the air realistically and beautifully.
Next is 'soundstage'...
How widely beyond the speakers does it project and how deeply behind (and in front) can one hear.
And finally, the most important ingredient and the most elusive.....
Is there 'magic' and 'emotional projection' that allows the sound to move me to tears or quiver with excitement or shake my head in disbelief....
This quality is hard to reproduce via the Youtube videos.

Therefore....in my system......there are cartridges which have more 'shimmering' highs.
There are cartridges which have more 'air' and 'transparency'.
There are cartridges which go convincingly lower.
There are cartridges which project a wider and deeper 'soundstage' and yes.......there are cartridges which manage to give me more 'magic' and 'emotion'.
So whilst I do love the LDR......I wouldn't listen to it exclusively 🤗

Thank you again Frogman....
Even though you have proclaimed a new 'Benchmark' in the cartridge comparisons....do you think it still relevant if we continue to compare cartridges to the Palladian?

Regards 

I know what you mean.....
Whenever I hear the Mr Whippy van come down the street playing Greensleeves, I know it’s ‘live’......

I think you’re being a little too hard on yourself. You are obviously a very astute and experienced listener and you have assembled a killer system. Your criteria for choosing your gear are obviously pretty darn good; I would not despair about that.  Please keep in mind that I don’t particularly enjoy nor seek any kind of mantle of authority about this stuff. It’s a fun hobby and talking about the music is far more interesting. Also keep in mind that I spend, on average, a minimum of about 4 hours a day, every day (some days, much more) around the sound of live acoustic instruments. Again, I don’t claim any kind of authority on this stuff; I try and put my opinions out there based on what I hear and some may roll their eyeballs and think I’m full of it. That’s ok, I know what I hear. You might find it interesting to know that the level of nuance in sound that most professional musicians deal with when choosing and tweaking their instrument, not to mention when performing, is often considerably finer and more elusive than anything we as audiophiles discuss. You may be surprised at how much time is spent analyzing the differences heard between, for instance, saxophone ligatures (that’s the little “clamp” that holds the reed to the mouthpiece). Not to mention the differences between the reeds or the instruments themselves; or between skin and leather pads. It’s pretty endless.

You are absolutely correct. The sound of our systems can be more “impressive” than the sound in some halls. And, yes, orchestral recordings like the Bartok are extremely difficult to reproduce (the reason that I asked for one). However, there are certain qualities in the sound of live music that will be there no matter how impressive, or not, is the overall sound compared to the sound of a good system. These qualities are usually in the areas of timbre and immediacy. Some of it is elusive and difficult to describe and one just knows it when one hears it; like the sound of a musician practicing saxophone coming out of an open window. High fidelity? Not compared to the “impressive” sound of our systems; but, in certain ways it is ultimate fidelity and one immediately knows that the sound is live. Re the two cartridges:

I think you shortchange yourself when you say that you wouldn’t be able to tell which one was playing. First, these two cartridges are, IMO, the two best so far.....FOR ME. As we all know, as gear gets better and better the differences tend to get smaller and smaller. Still, given the way that you have described what you hear from the various previous cartridges, I’m having a little trouble believing that you wouldn’t be able to tell which was which. Besides, being able to tell which is playing “while blindfolded” is not quite the same as being able to hear differences between the two and I have no doubt that you can.

Anyway, forgive the rambling and I don’t mean to get preachy about any of this. Thanks again for letting us experience vicariously the sound of these great cartridges. I think that being an audiophile should always remain fun while keeping the focus on the performance aspects at least as much as on the sound of it. My two cents.

Regards.

Wow Frogman........🤯
I wasn't expecting THAT...!!
Firstly....I agree completely how far we are from truly creating the illusion of a 'live orchestra'....even for million dollar systems (and I've heard several).
That's why at HiFi shows.....even Munich.... you rarely hear a room prepared to demonstrate its gear with a complex massed orchestral piece.
Well recorded studio sessions of female soloists with minimal backing instruments, are relatively easy (less demanding) for hifi systems to reproduce impressively.....even for midfi systems.
That's why you hear the same, boring female vocal tracks played interminably in the demonstration rooms at hifi shows and on web-based hifi zines like AV Showrooms...🤬
Even jazz ensembles are far easier for systems to reproduce convincingly in the living room.
And this may be one of the keys to the limitations with orchestral music.
To reproduce the reflections and volume of a concert hall with 80-120 instruments playing simultaneously, in a domestic living room, is simply asking too much.
However....there are some concert halls I've been in..... with seating from which the 'sound' is LESS impressive than that which I hear in my living room.
Now a trained musician like Frogman will still hear the sound of "real" even in these poor seats in mediocre halls.
I, it now appears......listen (or hear) things completely differently 🥴🙃?!
For instance...even now...after reading Frogman's illuminating review of the Palladian vs the LDR.....I can still listen 'live' (in my living room)...and not be able to tell which cartridge I was listening to (if I were blindfolded)...🤔
This has caused me endless consternation recently as I feel like an 'idiot'...😵
On what basis have I selectively assembled a system and conducted comparisons of a dozen tonearms and countless cartridges...?
Perhaps my hearing requires testing.....I've made an appointment 👂

Thank you Harold for the above Post.......
Full of emotion and enthusiasm 🥳
I suspect however that you meant it to appear in the 'Glanz Thread' where it would be read by more appropriate contributors.....?🧐
Regards

All wrong. Wrong song and I did not buy that MFG-610LX, just asked the seller about box & papers.

Back to square one: 24.11.1985 I bought the GLANZ MFG-310LX w/ solid diamond Line Contact and tapered aluminium (alloy perhaps ?) cantilever.
I remembered correctly that I may still have my MFG-310LX and found it :_). I gave it to my brother who gave it back circa 1990, he had stopped buying records and finally gave up vinyl. It has been in a chest of drawers all these years, in a jewel box. I cleaned the stylus and tried it, suspension is still strong but the sound is quite lame and not so accurate anymore. The stylus may simply have started to wear out as I had played it more than 400 hours + odd hours my bro payed ( I keep record all the carts I play). Ýes I´m sure the stylus profile has worn out. What a pity. The 310LX cantilever is more refined (app 2 times thinner) than 31L´s. And its sound is obviously better, well naturally.

Later in 1986 I was thinking of buying either the SHURE V15V-MR or GLANZ MFG-610LX, both highly acclaimed in the Hi-Fi magazines here. Both "hyped" equally and eventually I decided to go for the SHURE, 5.11.1986.
Steve Howe raves about the 1970´s, as the most adventurous time in music but the 1980´s was fantastic time for Hi-Fi cartridge manufacturing s, so bravo the 1980´s !
And now I have also the mid eighties GLANZ MFG-610LX, after all these years. And I confirm it´s a superb performer for high output cartridge, IME.

I hereby confirm that the earlier edition of the 610LX has a tube boron cantilever, so boron also w/ the 61´s, and a solid diamond Line Contact stylus. Yes indeed, according to the manual MFG-610LX as the most prestige model among GLANZ MF cartridges, employs tube Boron cantilever in order to achieve maximum efficiency at the electromagnetic mechanism.
FR 20 - 20,000 Hz +/- 1.5 dB or less, comp. 45/10 dyne, VTF 1,5 +/- 0,25 g.
According to the manual, the MFG-71L series are highly sophisticated cartridges ... Also, the sharply tapered cantilever with ultra thin end, reduces the mass of effective stylus-tip and increase its strenght. So it seems to me, quite literally in fact that the peculiar Pyramidian aluminium (alloy ?) cantilevers in 71L and 51L are hollow. Otherwise they would be ridiculous.
FR 20 - 20,000 Hz +/- 1.0 dB or less, comp. 50/12 dyne, VTF 1,25 +/- 0,25 g.

So the 71L has the best "specs", in theory. I´ve never heard an MFG-71L though, but might be interested to try one.
Now, if Halcro´s MFG-610LX has beryllium cantilever it is different than mine and Chak´s.
As for the miniature stylus tip in PH, naturally it is the finest of all GLANZ styli. However, it may be a marginal feature in sound quality. I´m referring to the analogy in AT-ML180 and AT-ML170 styli, both of which I have owned. And I confirm that the ML180 is marginally better than ML170 in my system, no more no less. Unfortunately the MFG 61 is discontinued and a mission impossible to find in decent condition .....

Let´s hope Halcro´s sample has a beryllium or perhaps a titanium cantilever, and that can be confirmed some day soon.
The later edition MFG-610LX may very well be the finest sounding GLANZ ever.
So bravo diversity !

Carry on and enjoy your darlings.

Great record and performance. I own it. Thanks.

The thing that always stands out the most for me when making these comparisons of gear of this caliber is just how far gear, even the best, has to go before it truly sounds like the real thing. The best sound systems sound amazing, but they all still deviate from true “neutrality” in very different and very audible ways. As always, listening this way has serious limitations. However, there is no question that one can hear a great deal that, on balance, makes one example sound closer to the sound of “real” than the other.... and, of course, system context plays a big part.

First, my bottom line. Which of the two cartridges fool me the most into thinking I am listening to a live orchestra? Frankly, and almost incredibly for me considering how I have felt about the Palladian previously, it’s not even close. The Decca wins. I think that noromance used the word “greatness”. Of course, greatness can mean different things to different listeners.

After listening to the Palladian clip a couple of times and then going to the Decca clip the first impression is that the soundstage fell back a couple of feet and became quite a bit smaller. Soon thereafter one realizes that it is infinitely better organized and without the high frequency halo and splashiness of the Palladian. When the piccolo plays those short ascending lines it also seems to grow in size as it ascends ending in a completely unnatural high frequency splash across the soundstage. Not harsh, but overly highlighted. With the Decca the piccolo’s sound always stays better localized; as it should. Instrumental timbres are more concentrated with the Decca and without the gray (lack of natural color) that I hear from the MM’s that the Palladian has been compared to. The piano sounds clangy with the Palladian and one hears wood with the Decca. The clarity that I have liked about the Palladian is still there, but there is simply too much high frequency energy.

The sound of the Palladian is much more upfront and one can feel like one is hearing deeper into the music, but there is also the sense that the music is being thrown in your face. The Decca requires that one “lean” into the music a little (a good thing) and once one does one actually hears much more musical detail and not just ear candy. The more “organized” sound lets the musical interaction of the musicians be more clearly heard.

Two great cartridges and for someone who does not listen to much acoustic music the Palladian might have the greatness; but, for me, the Decca raised the bar quite a bit. Re my first comment about “neutrality” and gear: I would love to hear the Palladian in a good all tube system.  Just a reflection of my biases, but I have a strong suspicion that it would be something special.

Great comparison and thanks for the thoughtful choice of music.

Princi, you got it right!

Had a quick listen at the office on Sennheiser headphones. I can hear greatness in the London and lighter, sharper transients in the AS. I had a look over the other videos and see the London is in the FR66 on the Raven, all the time. As I mentioned above, and will stand corrected, the London is not performing at its best on that rig.

Not the same video.  Listened on iPhone with earbuds and won’t get a chance to listen on my Stax set until later tonight so will reserve judgment until then.  Princi is quite the critic ☺️

I’ll listen later. But for now, I see the Decca is in the belt drive. Is this the same video we saw before? If so, it might explain the slight softness and lack of detail I heard. I think the Decca excels when in an idler (or perhaps a DD) with no damping (like springs or cork etc.) whatsoever.

This comparison is a little more complex.....
Not only do we have different arms, but also different turntables.
The Direct-Drive Victor TT-101 against the Belt-Drive TW Raven AC-2.
There are many who will claim this renders the comparison 'invalid' and I can appreciate their viewpoint.
However....I switch between the turntables on a regular basis and find the differences between the two, to be 'technical' rather than 'emotional'.
The Victor is precise and detailed with unflappable timing and rhythm.
The Raven is more relaxed and just slightly less precise....but sometimes more enjoyable 🙃

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI Cartridge

Thanks, halcro and noromance.  Re the Azden:  No need to apologize.  Keep in mind that I referred specifically and only to the Azden’s ability in the instrumental color dept.  I like it overall, but can definitely understand why in the company of the great cartridges in your collection it didn’t make the cut.  I can say, for instance, that my Empire D4000III Gold soundstages much better and has more powerful and extended bass, but is too soft and slightly grainy and that my Acutex has much better rhythmic drive than either.  Also, I use the ET2 linear tracker; a different animal (sorry, Princi).  Point is, I think that we each prioritize certain aspects of sound.  I key into instrumental color first and foremost. 

As as far as genre for the Palladian/Decca shootout:  How about a nice London/Decca orchestral recording?  Would you happen to have the Solti/London Symphony, Bartok “Concerto For Orchestra”?.  The finale is amazing.  If not, you probably have the Reiner/Chicago LSC?

Looking forward to more comparisons. Frogman summed it up. Always a great read. Thanks for the compliment Halcro. I'm partial to your Ketty Lester Love Letters track. I was somewhat disappointed by the London Reference when you played it before. I know the Decca's style of presentation can be a little Garrardy but was surprised by the relatively low level of fine detail. My Super Gold with Reference diamond sounds better. Something I put down to losses in the recording. Maybe this time, it'll be better!

I want to thank you again Frogman for that detailed, informative analysis.
I can’t admit to being able to hear exactly what you describe between MMs and MCs.....but your examples in these ’shoot-outs’ enable me to perhaps ’train’ myself to listen more intently....?

You read my mind......🤯
Knowing of your predilection for the wonderful London Decca Reference....I was going to conduct exactly the ’shoot-out’ you wish for, between it and the Palladian...👍

And if it’s confession time........
One of the first MM cartridges I bought (after my flirtation with LOMCs) was in fact the AZDEN YM P50VL and I’m embarrassed to admit that at the time.....it just didn’t make the CUT.
It’s been sitting in a drawer collecting DUST for 10 years...😱
Lucky I didn’t sell it....🥳
It will now receive the royal treatment and will be appearing at an iPad near you shortly.....
Any particular request for music genre in that ’shoot-out’...?

Regards

Confession time. In the spirit of full disclosure for the acknowledgment of possible bias I should point out that I wasn’t really looking forward to this comparison; except in order to hear (sort of 😏) “Fran-Dance” on halcro’s great system. Classic record.

I wasn’t looking forward to the comparison because I wasn’t that impressed with the Garrott both times that we heard it previously. I found it to be too covered sounding with too much high frequency information missing. I don’t know if this is the same Garrott, but it sounds much better to me than the two previous times. Better high frequency detail and air; but not quite there yet, imo. Sounds very good. Still....

Sorry Princi (very cute!), but once again to my ears the Palladian lets me hear much more natural instrumental color and better separation of instruments. Miles’ Harmon mute sounds appropriately metallic and buzzy. With the Garrott it sounds a little “soft” by comparison. The bass also sounds slightly “drummy” and insdistinct. Trane’s tenor sound doesn’t have enough edge; it had a lot of edge, particularly during that period in time. Relatively subtle differences, but they are there.

The way the two cartridges soundstage is actually the most strikingly different quality. The Garrott seems more recessed while the Palladian seems to be more upfront with a larger soundstage. This is really curious: I may be wrong, but I believe this a mono pressing? Mono recordings can give a good sense of depth as well as stereo recordings. Really good ones can even have sonic cues that suggest left-right information. With the Garrott all the instruments are bunched in the middle and the presentation sounds smaller overall. With the Palladian I can clearly hear the piano to be left of center and the horns right of center within a clearly larger soundstage. If this is in fact a stereo recording then I suppose the Garrott can be said to fare even worse in this department.

I know that some disagree about this and I have avoided making these generalizations because I realize that it is not the experience of others. Based on my experience using both MM and MC cartridges in various systems over the years, with the to be expected exceptions, MM cartridges, along with their many great attributes, seem to miss the most subtle details in the natural color and texture of instrumental timbres. For me, there is often what I would characterize as a “gray(ish)” character to instrumental colors. This is the main reason that I generally can’t stand Shure cartridges. That was one of the reasons I liked the Victor (X1?) so much; the instrumental color was there. “Color” gets a bad rap from audiophiles; but the sound of instruments is full of color. MC’s seem to generally preserve more of the natural color, but unfortunately tip the overall balance upwards for a sound that can seem too lean compared to MMs’ generally fuller balance. But one can have a tonal balance that is closer to real and still not have the right instrumental color and texture. For me the Palladian strikes the best balance so far.

Btw, I would love to hear a shootout between the Palladian and the Decca Reference. THAT ought to be interesting. Another cartridge that I would love to hear is the Azden YM P50VL. My experience with various MM’s is pretty limited compared to halcro’s amazing collection, but of all the MM’s that I have owned, the Azden, while far from perfect in other departments, is the one that did not impart any of that gray (bleached) tonal quality. Don’t know why this is so, but it has been my experience; even compared to the one that I suspect most would consider the overall best in my modest collection, the ATML-170 OCC.

Thanks, halcro!

I've had my three Garrott P77 cartridges for nearly 40 years.
I first put a JICO SAS (Boron) stylus in one of them about 6 years ago and then tried the NEO-SAS (Sapphire) and NEO-SAS (Ruby) a few years ago.

AS PALLADIAN LOMC Cartridge

GARROTT P77/SAS(Ruby)

Princi (the poodle) has already made his choice.......🐩

Noromance is becoming more confident in his analyses and I think he's spot-on....
Frogman and "the very cute pooch" (Princi-a male Principessa) are also correct as usual...at least in Frogman's case....Princi is generally a sideline critic 🤣....
I agree with Frogman that the Glanz gives the Palladian more of a contest....
Whether that changes as the Grace 'runs-in'....I'll let you know 🤗

Nice descriptions by no romance and I agree completely; with the possible exception of the “makes you wanna dance” part. I say possible because, while I don’t hear any outright advantage with the Grace in the “dance” department, it is true that sometimes if one reduces one type of detail it can serve to highlight another aspect of the sound. The Grace reduces some high frequency detail. This results in the sound of the plucks of the strings of the guitar and the harpsichord sounding slightly round compared to the more realistic incisive quality one hears with the Palladian.

This recording is wonderful with many different and unique instrumental timbres. With the Grace they all sound slightly homogenized compared to the Palladian which allows one to hear more individuality in the color of the various instrumental sounds. I think the very cute pooch agrees; he(?) left the room while the Grace played ☺️

As halcro pointed out the differences are slight and make one wonder whether the price difference is justified. The Grace sounds excellent but I think the Glanz does a somewhat better job of challenging the Palladian.

Lawnmower? I remember that song. "Jacob, wake up!" 

Wonderful Harmonia Mundi record. The MM sounds great. On first listen, it sounded more fun to listen to. Bowed cello sounded purposeful and driven. It took three listens to appreciate the essential additional detail, sustain and decay of the (glass) bells and the snappier, spacious, colorful, playful percussion of sticks on rims by the Palladian to have the MC win it for me. I'm noticing a trend. The magnets are lively and free and make you wanna dance whilst the coils are detailed and precise.

So, it was you 😤.  Btw, a most unusual (strange) and interesting post.

Me ? I´m just lawnmover and not good at computers, I´m an old hat : ^¨. To be honest, I don´t trust those machines. Btw, without Isaac Asimov´s Three Laws of Robotics the computers and eventually robots will take over, maybe sooner than later; some experts say that we already have lost our control over technology that eventually will enslave mankind. How cares about some unknown author who died exactly 27 yrs ago. Certainly those who are in power are not thinking about Asimov´s Laws ! Let alone Einstein´s or Hawking´s ideas and guidance.

And I have a life outside the internet and activities like marital responsibilities, and in my restricted spare time I´d rather listen some music than argue in dull and endless conversations about divergence of outcome audio quality levels in different Hi-Fi stereo systems especially with besserwissers. And I´m really not good at in social media either. To be honest, just lately I´ve been listening a spectacular vintage cartridge that probably and "seemingly" outperforms all GLANZ models, no matter what styli they may have, it´s just in other performance level. But that of course is a different subject and off-topic.

However, I may have some crucial information of the relatively interesting subject in question. I live in a different GLANZ bubble unlike some others (?), you see I´ve been living in the MGF-XXX bubble all my audio life ; )
Indeed I had an audio life decades ago, my first true HQ cartridge was namely the GLANZ MFG-310LX w/ Line Contact stylus which I bought ... if my memory serves me right late 1984 ... wait a moment ... something came to my mind ...

Meanwhile you could see this more closely and judge yourselves (I still can copy and paste): https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GLANZ-610LX-Moving-Flux-Phono-Cartridge-/132994137794?ul_noapp=true&n... I asked the seller if this has original manual but he said no. What a pity.

Another new acquisition (thanks to Chakster)........
A NOS GRACE SERIES II
Disco version....🕺 though we don't quite know what that means as it has the BERYLLIUM CANTILEVER WITH LINE CONTACT STYLUS just like the normal Series II.
Definitely better than the GRACE F9...the LEVEL II requires careful set-up and probably 50 hours run-in time.
This one only has about 9 hours......
How does it fare in the shoot-out....?

AS PALLADIAN 

GRACE LEVEL II 

Glanz invented Boron cantilever for one model only in 1982, this model is MFG-61 with PH stylus.

At that time all Mitachi Moving Flux cartridges have had 3 kings of cantilevers, look at my picture: 1) Conventional Aluminum, 2) Rare Boron Rod (in the middle) 3) Very strage huge tapered Aluminum.

The headshell integrated versions of Glanz MF may have slightlyt different cantilevers, but they are all huge in diameter!

The manufacturer clearly stated the Glanz MFG-61 is most prestige model among Moving Flux cartridges . The date on the Bruel & Kjaer individual test for MFG-61 is 1982.07.04

Any Glanz MF models with 3 digits number released later on, not before.
I believe the 610LX was released in the late 80’s or in the early 90’s, the Glanz was closed in 2003.

We have no proof of the cantilever type utilized for their MFG-610LX, but i wish to find a proof!

All we can say for sure is that earlier MFG-61 has Boron Rod cantilever and it’s documented.

@harold-not-the-barrel I´ve known that for two yrs now, you see I have the former 1980´s edition 610LX w/ boron

The cantilever of MFG-610LX is completely different compared to MFG-61 !
The color of 610 is too light for Boron, most likely it’s Beryllium or Titanium (because it hollow). But if you said you have a Boron (and you have a box) it sould be nice to know what’s stated in the manual. Do you have the manual for 610LX ? We could stop speculation about it once we could see a picture of the manual, really. Could you provide it ?

Now I must point that the former 31L is inferior and mediocre indeed. 51L is still quite enjoyable, tracks Telarc cannons with ease but nothing magical though.

I have scanned the manual for all Glanz (2 digit models) and now you can compare the specification for all of them from 71 to 51 and from 31 to 11 , enjoy.

Comparing my 31L, 71L and 61 i must say the worst sounding model is 71L with it’s huge cantilever. My sample was NOS, burned-in and tested. The 31L was much better than 71L in my system.

But they are all too bad compared to the MFG-61

....the performance of the 610LX is NOTHING like the other Glanz 31L, 51L, and 71L cartridges which are rather dull and mediocre IMO.

Good to know, Henry. The rest of the models except 610LX and 61 can be forgotten forever with all ASTATIC cartridges made by Mitachi.

Listening your files and reading your comments i believe more people will realize than Cantilever material does matters when it comes to Mitachi MF cartridges (Glanz, Astatic, Azzurra, Jamo ... ).

More information about Glanz is in the glanz thread

Cheers.

Yes of course the MFG-610LXs top them all, I´ve known that for two yrs now, you see I have the former 1980´s edition 610LX w/ boron and it sounded awesome out of the box (was NOS). Fantastic cartridge in my system, top 5 "MM".
My first GLANZ was MFG-310LX (in early 80´s) and also great, the best thing I remember it had no listening fatigue. Now I must point that the former 31L is inferior and mediocre indeed. 51L is still quite enjoyable, tracks Telarc cannons with ease but nothing magical though.
Seems that the darn Palladian is still a few steps ahead ; )

Thanks Harold.....
The cantilever looks like beryllium to me.....
But it might be titanium or even aluminium although someone claims it is boron......
There was no box or literature that came with it and the specs page I've seem only lists the stylus as 'line contact' but no mention of the cantilever.
Being familiar with all the beryllium cantilevered styli in my collection....my money is on that 🤗

And as Chakster has repeatedly stated.....the performance of the 610LX is NOTHING like the other Glanz 31L, 51L, and 71L cartridges which are rather dull and mediocre IMO.

Yes Frogman,
Rita Coolidge's 'Good Old Days' on A&M is one of the most naturally  recorded, all analogue albums I've heard.
No theatrics or 'look-at-me' processing in the recording and mastering stages....this has been my 'go-to' album for 40 years having been played over 1000 times (hence the missing cover).
The whole album will tell me almost everything I need to know about a system or a cartridge or a tonearm or an amplifier or speakers.....

An excellent appraisal (as always) Frogman and it seems that you and Noromance are in agreement on these two 👍

I'm really glad that the Palladian remains the 'benchmark' as I would feel rather silly having forked out the price of admission needlessly....🤔

My aim is really to expose the SLIGHT differences produced by the uber-priced LOMC cartridges over fairly cheap vintage MM ones.
The Glanz 610LX in NOS condition cost me $450......
If some audiophiles can justify those differences to be worth $9,000-$15,000.....who am I to argue?

I'm grateful for your contributions Frogman and am pleased it is "fun" for you because it surely also is for me....😎

Regards

Halcro, excellent as always ! That´s a great find ! Looks like beryllium... As you have many beryllium carts can you confirm the material ?? This is extremely important. Thank you

First, Rita sounds wonderful.  Very nice performance.

I should probably go back and listen to the other cartridges that have been compared to the Palladian before making this comment, but I think that the Glanz, overall, gives the Palladian the best “run for its money” of all of them.  

The Glanz is excellent and in some ways I like its tonal balance on the sound of the piano a little better than the Palladian which sounds a little “tinkly” at times.  This is a result or the Glanz having a fuller tonal balance which also adds more weight to the bass and a seductive dusky quality to the voice.  While the piano has more realistic weight it also has a less realistic timbre overall; it sounds a little odd in the higher registers and lacking a little natural brilliance. The extra weight in the bass makes the bass sound a little too thick and with less pitch definition than the Palladian.  Listen to the three note ascending bass line at 1:52 and the upward glissando at 1:59.  Less distinct than on the Palladian where one can more clearly hear the individual pitches of the notes.  The voice on the Palladian has a better sense of purity and refinement to my ears even if that dusky quality and extra chestiness one hears with the Glanz can be very appealing.  

The Palladian also seems slightly more dynamically alive.  At 2:20 the vocal finishes a phrase with “am I blue?” and the piano takes over for a solo.  There is a dynamic crescendo that happens from that point forward until the beginning of the new chorus at 2:28.  With the Palladian this increase in intensity sounds more like an arrival at a new musical “event”; as it should.  With the Glanz this musical detail is a little less obvious and one doesn’t hear quite as much increase in intensity.

The Glanz does not track as well as the Palladian.  There are times when the sound gets a little strained and at least two obvious examples of breakup:

1:28 - on the lyric “I” one hears a bit of strain in the vocal sound.
1:50 - very obvious breakup from the low bass note along with the lyric “Lordy”.
2:43 - a bit of breakup on the sharply struck single piano note.

Both are excellent and the differences are certainly not huge.  I can definitely see how the Glanz’ tonal balance might be just the ticket in a particular system with a particular voicing.  I would be curious how the Glanz handles orchestral strings in the tracking department.  As always, I wish I could say that the less expensive cartridge beats the $10K Palladian, but I’m afraid the Palladian is still “the benchmark”.  The Palladian is a kickass cartridge.  

Thanks, Halcro; always interesting and fun.  

BTW, all timings are from the Glanz track which runs about two seconds ahead of the P track.  

Glanz - nice open sound, free and loose of damping which give it a dynamic quality. Initially, it almost sounds better than the MC...
Palladian - nice open sound, I can feel that there is more control over the music. Bass is tighter and more delineated, In fact, this is how most of it sounds. Voice and piano are more controlled, more etched and consequently, more musical information is imparted.

No correction necessary, Halcro. With, of course, the usual caveats that listening this way has important limitations (talk about stating the obvious!) and using different tone arms has to be factored in. Still, one can compare the two different sounds and determine which one is closest to the ultimate benchmark, the sound of live.

Wow, this one is really interesting! A couple of quick listens only so far; will share some impressions later today when I have more time to listen and write. The external mic into the iPhone is a definite improvement over the previous 😉

Just checked the video, i like the 610LX sound! And the music is nice too 

But you can’t pressure-fit a stylus to boron....

Actually SONY did that just like Technics with laser technology (magic trick). Their hollow Boron pipes fitted with Nude Diamonds with almost no glue compared to traditional Boron rods with a drop of glue (like on my 61).

I’m a fan of Beryllium catilevers, you know.

But you can’t pressure-fit a stylus to boron....
You must use glue.
I meant.....what do you think of the sound in my video?

I’ve never tried the 610LX, but the sound of my 61 was excellent, but it was long time ago when i played a records with it.

The Beryllium on your 610LX looks like my Titanium Victor X-1IIe :)

We can’t go wrong with Beryllium, this is what i know for sure.

But i wish to see the manual to make sure 100% what cantilever they got on 610LX

I realized that the japanese seller claimed it’s Boron ( which is better for his seles :)

In fact it can be Beryllium or Titanium, it can be Boron (because my SONY XL-50 MM has a hollow pipe Boron and it looks similar, just darker).

Yes Chak,
Very different technology with the boron cantilever needing a load of epoxy....whilst the hollow beryllium is more sophisticated.
What do you think of the sound...?

@halcro thanks for the close-up picture of the Glanz 610LX cantilever (finally), now we can see it's completely different in comparison to the Glanz 61 (from 1984) which has a Boron Rod cantilever. The way the stylus is mounted is also different. I have many more high-resolution pictures to post in our glanz thread, some pics and interesting facts are already there in my last messages. 

Our quest to find a MM cartridge as close as possible to a current $10,000 Uber LOMC cartridge continues.
Here is a new acquisition....
GLANZ 610LX
A NOS vintage Moving Flux cartridge for which there exists precious little information.
It has a nude line-contact (or Shibata) stylus pressure-fitted into a BERYLLIUM HOLLOW-TUBE CANTILEVER
Technology that no current manufacturer can match or supply...🤗

AS PALLADIAN LOMC CARTRIDGE
This is the $10,000 current LOMC cartridge that Frogman has 'anointed' as 'The Benchmark' in my system (correct me if I'm wrong Frogman 🤔)

GLANZ 610LX

😄

Your ears can be just as good as frogman’s, our walking encyclopedia on all thinks musical .

First step is to listen to live acoustic music for about 60, 000 hours , maybe 50,000 if you do the playing and either way take Music Theory 101-102 at a
university School of Music at the same time .You can read the 4-500
musical history books at home in your spare time .