IMHO, the Delos is clearly the superior performer, but by today's pricing standards, the out-of-production Dorian can also be an attractive bargain.
The Dorian was phased out because higher fuel, energy, raw material etc., not to mention the Yen's rise against pretty much every other currency meant that it was no longer possible to keep it in production without seeing prices increase significantly.
Some of our distributors in particularly price-sensitive markets still deplore the loss of the Dorian, but the reality is that if it had been kept in production, its retail pricing wouldn't be too far off from the Delos (unless the distributor was willing to reduce margins substantially).
In return for its higher price, the Delos offers higher performance, particularly in the areas of dynamic range and gradation, and timbral range and gradation. The differences are a bit like comparing multiple-exposure HDR photos to single-exposure shots. The Delos also tracks better than the Dorian.
Some listeners even prefer the Delos over the Kleos, but IMO, this is due to the fact that the Delos has a more incisive treble, which works better in certain types of audio systems.
As to whether the Dorian or the Delos is the "better buy", my personal opinion is that its the Delos, but if your tonearm prefers a lighter cartridge, or you want to save money and you don't think that your audio system will benefit much from the Delos' higher resolution, you may prefer the Dorian. There are valid reasons for either choice.
hth, jonathan carr |
Unfortunately I (as I believe is the case with most other craftsman-oriented audio manufacturers) don't have the large-scale mechanized manufacturing facilities that would allow audio products to be produced at the low prices that Audio-Technica, Denon or Ortofon can manage. Nonetheless, I am focused on providing value for the money. Even if cartridges like the Delos or Kleos aren't outright cheap, I try my best to make sure that they are not overpriced for their material and manufacturing content and sound quality, nor (IMHO) for the design effort that I personally put in.
FWIW, the pricing of each of our cartridge models is based primarily on what they cost us to produce, rather than their performance levels relative to the competition. That's probably why some reviewers tell us that our cartridges could sell for hundreds more than their actual retail prices. In reality, I start each new design with a clear idea of the production budget allowed for each cartridge unit. My view is that the more sound and build quality I can figure out how to extract from the engineering budget defined, the more value the cartridge will represent, and hopefully the more popular it will be. Conversely, if I can only figure out how to extract a limited amount of sound quality from the engineering budget, the cartridge will be perceived as being less desirable.
As to getting the manufactured cost of a cartridge down to US$100, I couldn't do it, unless the cartridge design were very, very different from what we've done so far. As it stands, our manufacturing and operational costs are too expensive to make such targets realistic, so we'd need to reduce costs in a big way. US$100 doesn't even cover the costs for the stylus assemblies that we use, we'd definitely need to lower component quality, such as using cheaper cantilever assemblies and lower-grade styli, and switching from machined metal to molded plastic bodies. Our present labor costs of employing skilled craftsmen mean that a cheaper cartridge would need to be of mostly machine-made construction, with as little hand-made content as possible. This suggests some kind of fixed-coil cartridge (MM or MI etc), rather than an MC, the use of mainly molded or pressed components, and increased production volumes. Third possibility would be to try moving production to a cheaper country, and hope that quality control won't be too much of a headache (based on previous experiences).
However, every one of the above items is likely to result in reduced product quality. Is that really what the target customers of brands like Lyra, Koetsu, Allearts, Miyabi etc. - that are principally known for hand-made cartridges and human craftsmanship - expect (or want)? I acknowledge that there is a market demand for cheaper cartridges, but as long as other, bigger companies exist to satisfy that demand for cheaper cartridges, I see little point in forcing Lyra to pursue the path of cheaper-above-all.
IMO, the only item among the above that may possibly be worthwhile for Lyra to pursue is a fixed-coil cartridge, because I think that there may still be room to come up with a fixed-coil design that is technically unique and worthwhile above and beyond its price (while keeping manufacturing costs under control). The caveats are that I would need to be able to come up with design that was novel and clever enough, next we'd need to be able to come up with the money to finance the tooling and molding costs (for higher-volume production), finally we'd need to consider if we were at all able to afford the kind of marketing and promotional effort that would be required for a higher-volume cartridge. The last time that I looked into tooling and molding costs for a totally new fixed-coil cartridge design was around 2003 (AFAIR), and the total sum was upwards of US$100,000 (again AFAIR). If I were to designed another fixed-coil cartridge today, it would almost certainly be quite different from the design that I did in 2003, but I would be shocked if tooling and molding costs were lower now. The two key questions would be, do we have the technical and financial ability to accomplish such a project, and would it be worth the risks?
cheers, jonathan carr
PS. I should state that I'm not in audio for the money (as my income tax statement proves - grin). I'm in audio because I enjoy designing, building, and particularly designing and building innovative things that wouldn't exist if I didn't take on the challenge. I believe that this kind of attitude is fairly common among craftsmen, artisans (and musicians). We do what we do mainly because we enjoy it and we relish the challenge of pushing ourselves and our craft as far as we can. Whatever money we earn is important in that it allows us to continue doing what we love - but no more than that. |
In response to Theo "What does Lyra do with the trade-ins?", I've pondered over this question in the past, but so far I've not been able to arrive at a good answer. There are a couple of major reasons for this. One is that our primary limit is our production capacity. One craftsman (with some help from an assistant) can only make a certain number of cartridges with a fixed time period, and when demand for new models is high, preciously little production capacity remains to make anything else. Even if I designed a new model around a Lydian B (for example), I'd need to find someone other than Mishima to build it (because his production capacity is already back-ordered with Delos, Kleos, Skala and Titans, not to mention rebuilds of Helikons, Titans etc.). Yes, I can design more new models (or modified models) than Mishima can deal with, but doing so isn't of any use unless we can increase our production capacity by training new cartridge builders. Admittedly, we've been working on this for some years now, but the people that we are training as Mishima's apprentices need to make much more progress before they can be trusted to build (or rebuild) complete cartridges.
Two is that our older cartridge models get phased out of production not because we want to give the appearance of a fresh new product lineup every year so as to boost sales with a minimum of effort, but because I've figured out a better (and hopefully more interesting) way to build cartridges. The Lydian B was discontinued because it wasn't a good enough performer as compared to the "DC" generation (Clavis DC, Parnassus DCt, Helikon, Argo), and no longer justified its manufacturing time or costs.
If the areas of deficiency in a given design are are focused around the cantilever, stylus, coils, suspension, dampers, or even the magnets, the design can be brought up to date by changing the pertinent areas, and without too much difficulty. This was the case with the Argo i, Titan i, also the Helikon (although we never advertised that fact). By incorporating new technologies such as the Helikon Mono-derived 70x3um stylus, or the Dorian-inspired "i" suspension into existing cartridge models, we were able to add years to the product lives of the Argo, Titan and Helikon.
But when the areas of deficiency are mechanical or relate to the basic physical structure of the cartridge, it becomes far more difficult to update the design effectively. The problem with the Lydian B is that the physical structure is designed for a single large magnet and two iron polepieces, while all of our newer cartridges have two small magnets and a single non-conductive "magnet carrier" which has no magnetic properties at all. I don't think that it is possible to remake the Lydian B bodies into something that can accept the two small magnets and single magnet carrier that are the cornerstone of all "DC" designs (which include the Delos and Kleos).
The only time that I actually re-designed the mechanical structure of a prior-generation cartridge was with the Olympos, which was in essence a completely new cartridge designed around the platinum magnet and polepieces from the original blue Panassus. But that was done for a cartridge model that wasn't made in large quantities to begin with (blue Parnassus), it was done in a complex and labor-intensive manner (the body structure is machined titanium and exceeds the Titan's body in complexity), and we only made a handful of replacement bodies at a time. All of these factors resulted in quite high cost, which isn't what I believe Theo has in mind (grin).
If what is required is an update to the mechanical structure of the cartridge but doing so isn't practical, the possibilities of designing and implementing a realistic and convincing update are limited. At best, we could try to update the cantilever, coil core and windings, suspension and dampers, but although the resulting cartridge would likely sound better than the original, there is a good possibility that it still wouldn't measure up to the Dorian, let alone the Delos.
Is that amount of performance sufficient when Lyra's entry-level performance is defined by cartridges like the Delos? I'd say not, but OTOH my training as a designer is always to look for ways to improve things, and not be satisfied with a performance level that I've already reached in the past. Maybe I'm not the right person to answer the question (smile).
A third issue is how many returned cartridges we have in stock (to serve as the basis for the modified or rebuilt cartridge). It wouldn't make sense to do such a project for only 50 cartridge bodies (for example).
A fourth issue is the visual condition of the old cartridge bodies; what the new owners would be willing to accept vs. how much effort it would take to get the bodies into good condition (some cartridge bodies would be hopeless).
In any case, the dominant issue of how to increase our production capacity needs to be answered first, so I don't expect for us to be able to convert traded-in cartridges into factory-authorized pre-owned cartridges in the near future. Still, it is an interesting angle, and one that is very much worth keeping in mind for the future. I know that I sometimes look at boxes of trade-in bodies, or trays of unbuilt bodies of cartridge models that were phased out of production, or some of the cartridge prototypes that we've built over the years, and wonder if there aren't effective ways to rejuvenate them and put them back into service.
best, jonathan carr |
Dear Rob:
More than any other cartridge model, I have been hesitant to design a successor to the Skala. Since it was only put into production in 2006, I would feel guilty about making Skala owners feel that their cartridge has been outmoded so soon. I know that it has now been 5 years since the Skala was introduced, but it still feels like a rather new model to me.
I would want some kind of request from Skala owners that they truly wanted a successor, or at least voices of assurance that they would be OK if I were to do so.
Also, Mishima has indicated that his hands are quite full with the Delos and Kleos, and he'd much prefer that I left the Skala as it is, rather than forcing him to learn the ins and outs of yet another new cartridge design. I believe that I'd have to get pretty creative with the carrot and stick to get him to go along with a Skala successor (grin).
Incidentally, although the "New Angle" 20-degree body and asymmetrical dampers as used on the Delos and Kleos are a given for any Skala successor, the basic structure of the Skala is so different from any other cartridge (Lyra or not) that the pre-stressed construction that is the heart of the Kleos body is ill-suited. Ergo, if I were to apply Kleos-like construction techniques to the Skala, it would be very hard to keep it recognizably in the Skala lineage.
I guess that I'd need to come up with a different structural approach that hasn't been done before.
cheers, jonathan |
Dear Mordante: While the assembly of the Dorian was initially planned to be outsourced, this plan was cancelled while the cartridge was still in the prototype stage. Every production Dorian has shipped with Mishima's hands-on TLC. The Dorian was originally planned to be a lower-cost cartridge, it was planned to be made in higher volumes, and it was planned to be not made by Mishima. To increase component volume and get individual component costs down, the mechanical components of the Dorian shared the same design as the Argo, and were made on the same machines. Anodizing was changed to a less sensitive color than the Argo (nothing is as aggravating as having a perfectly machined body get rendered unusable because of duff anodizing), and we specified a stylus that was as close in dimension and shape to the Argo, but off-the-shelf rather than a custom design (custom designs will always be more expensive). However, the Dorian project suffered a setback in the assembly phase. I've written previously about what happened here http://learn.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1268751339&openflup&62&4I kept all of the design aspects of the Dorian, but brought in Akiko Ishiyama as Mishima's apprentice-in-training. As she learned the craft of building MCs over the past 8 years, Akiko has gradually taken on more and more of the early assembly stages of the Dorian. Nonetheless, Mishima does all of the final assembly and voicing work which is critical to the performance and sound. This is true for each and every Dorian that has ever shipped. The situation is the same with all of the Delos' - the basic assembly is done by Akiko, and the finishing, voicing and measuring is by Mishima. Actually, Akiko is now involved in some of the basic assembly work for the Kleos as well as the Delos, and she continues to do good work. Since the Dorian was never outsourced, keeping it in our lineup would have indeed been an extra burden on Mishima (and Akiko). Although the Dorian would still have been cheaper than the Delos if we had kept it in our lineup, rising material, energy, processing etc costs meant that it wouldn't have been much cheaper. I estimate that retail of the Dorian as it was would now need to be US$1300 or thereabouts, and that meant that it would clearly offered much less performance and sound quality for the money than when it was priced at under US$1000. I didn't feel good about seeing the retail price rise without any accompanying increase in performance, so I pondered various ways to boost performance. OTOH it wouldn't have made sense to increase performance by throwing advanced materials or complex machining at the problem, as this would have bumped the resulting cartridge right out of its intended retail price target. Luckily I had the "New Angle" inspiration, and this made it possible to introduce a Dorian (and Argo) replacement with much-improved performance, for not much more than the Dorian would have ended up costing anyway. As to how well the Delos performs in comparison to the Dorian, that is going to change depending on what kind of audio system you have and your setup skills. Also when it comes to subjective opinions, there is no wrong or right. Although I've heard (a very few) systems where there wasn't much to choose between the Dorian and Delos, by far and large, I find the Delos to perform at the Helikon class and above. hth, jonathan carr |
Dear Miner:
Regarding trade-in value of a new-ish Delos, I honestly don't know, as each distributor sets their own pricing for retail, trade-ins, upgrades, rebuilds etc. The dealer that you bought the Delos from is probably the best person to ask.
Regarding the next step up for you, the quick answer is the Kleos at US$2700. But 3 months with a cartridge that you say you are happy with, and then onto the next one - IMO this is too quick.
Also, compared to the Delos, the Kleos is a lower-output cartridge, which will be more demanding on your phono stage, and it puts more mechanical energy into the tonearm and damps the headshell less, which means a bigger challenge for the tonearm. I don't know what turntable, tonearm or phono stage you are using, but unless they are up to the task, it could be that the Kleos leaves you less satisfied. I recall some Helikon users who upgraded to the Titan, and for them and their audio systems it turned out to be a downgrade, while I've previously pointed out in this thread that some users prefer the Delos over the Kleos in their systems.
If I were you, I'd listen to the Delos more, probably borrow a lower-output cartridge to see how your phono preamp gets along with it, and maybe borrow a lower-compliance cartridge to see how your tonearm likes it. If any of the results suggest that there could be problems or marginal results from the Kleos in your system as it is now, I'd then look into alternative phono stages and/or tonearms which could do better. These wouldn't necessarily need to be new - something like a second-hand Graham 2.2 or Triplanar could be pretty nice.
I believe that an upgraded phono stage or tonearm could be a more effective path for you now than the Kleos, as these would give you a better foundation for performance improvements in the future, regardless of whichever phono cartridge you ultimately decided was the one for you.
It could be a result of my engineering background, but I get a lot of pleasure from figuring out how to squeeze out the absolute maximum performance that I can from my gear. Only when I'm satisfied that I've extracted pretty much everything there is to be had from a component will I think about its replacement.
I'd also suggest that you take your time. Unless you have lots of income to dispose on audio, unhurried, carefully considered decisions are likely to get you farther and give you more ultimate satisfaction (and for less outlay).
I'm not saying that you shouldn't consider a cartridge upgrade, but hopefully I've shown that there are other issues and options that you may want to think about first.
kind regards, jonathan carr |
