The Raven AC 3 motor with the THALES arm can be an amazing combo that can run with any linear tracking system.
I still own the Versa Dynamics and the Goldmund reference turntable with the T3F Gold arm.
The Raven AC with the Thales , a pivot tangential sounded significantly better. |
RE: The 3 Motors. It took me a while to understand the reasons for the benefit. I am not 100% sure of them but here it goes. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
1) The belt has more even "tension"
2) While a the belt is pulled on the pulley on one side, the belt is pushed on the other side. This creates a slack part of the belt. The additional motor pulling where the other one is pushing helps make the tension more even.
3) All the motors a syncronized via the motor controller.
4) The belt has much less contact with the platter, which will produce less frictional resistance against the platter.
5) The platters inertia is greater. For all of us who ride a bicycle, or even drive a car. The more you inflate your tires, the easier (and bumpier) it is t peddle or the better mileage you get. I assume this reduced contact with the belt is similar. |
ELinor and Raul,
Regarding the 3 motor Raven.
Apparantly there is a jump in performance going with 3 motors, no differance using two, but three...Why ,off hand I couldn't tell you.
I have read this somewhere , perhaps in J.Valins review in TAS or over at AV guide.
Also there has been a recent motor speed control upgrade for the AC Raven. |
Dear Elinor: +++++ " with regard to increased performance level by virtue of 3 motors instead of one. " +++++
I really can't say if will be an improvement or not, could be. My little doubt is because three motors represent three vibration/distortion sources against only one with one motor, of course that like always we have to choose the best trade-offs.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
You are all correct regarding the issues of tonearms, linear v/s pivoted tracking, how cartridges perform in those arms, and the effects with regard to the Raven and the Walker. I love my Raven/Tri-Planar set-up, but had I the cash, I would have gone for the Walker. As it is, I have the one motor version of the Raven and in the next year or so, I will attempt to make the decision as to whether I buy 2 more motors. I think that will be a tough one to sort out with regard to increased performance level by virtue of 3 motors instead of one. |
From my own experience,a "really good" table,especially with an integrated "linear arm" (like the fabulous Walker)will trounce virtually anything you can compare it to!
If you have not heard a "reasonable" comparison....you will be quite surprised when you do!
I've simply had way too much exposure to a "great" linear air bearing arm to be convinced otherwise.You just have to listen(at length)to how music flows from such a combo.
Any cartridge will sound better,in it too!
As far as J.V.'s "Phantom" experience,and subsequent opinions regarding tonal colorations(from the Raven),and related equipment pairings(whether cartridge or table).....
there is just SO much alternative "voicings" that you can get with a Phantom(mainly because the fluid is SO important/impactful on tonal shadings and inner detail...(which is a good thing,IMO)...that you have to take his comments in the context of someone who has NOT got alot of "time in" with the personality of "that" arm!!.....
Not to try to denegrate his comments,but Graham arm's need "alot" of owner experimentation to fully realize how one can "get it" to the optimized performance envelope with a given cartridge/table combo.
From my experience with the superb Graham arms(2.2 and Phantom) I can easily see how J.V.'s comments about some "darkening" from tha Raven table,could "easily" be a "touch" more fluid,in the bearing pivot of the arm instead....
This could "easily" be the case,and I have overdone the business of "voicing" many times,only to go back to other prior settings,but it DID give me great insight as to how the fluid can influence a cartridge....BTW,anyone owning a Phantom for a goodly length of time knows this!
I "assume" J.V. could not have had enough time with the Phantom to learn it's little "fluid quirks"....which I consider an "advantage" in reality(for the additional flexibility it affords it's curious owner)!!You just have to live with the arm,for a long time to get this.
If he claims he is "expert" already(when he has NOT listed the arm previously,in his equip under usage)than I just don't buy that notion....BTW,I enjoy reading J.V.'s thoughts,and am not trying to undermine him,but he has a "tiny bit" of ego....sometimes.
So,although I know the Raven to be superb,and love the Phantom...in all honesty...there is NOT alot of tables out there to "match or exceed" the Walker!!
Even with the great press that TAS gave the latest REFERENCE table from overseas,in the last issue(150,000 dollars...whew)...having a product from a "local" mfgr pays HUGE dividends in the long run......
"THAT" I know from recent experience.....where I had a dealer basically bury his head in the sand,rather than try to get a "little" involved and aid me with my problem(where the grounding scheme of the product he sold me,was the culprit...he should know this...no?)!! "That" episode has taken me months to sort out!!
Just some thoughts |
Dear Darren: +++++ " Valin's favorite cartridge on the Walker is the PC-1, then he should find his favorite cartridge for the Phantom and do a sytem shootout in totality. Honestly, even the phono stage would come into play in certain situations depending on the gain & impedance ofthe cartridge in play. " +++++
You are totally right, it is unfair to make judgements where you don't even both items ( whole ) during a comparison.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
I think the review is a comparison of Linear Tracking vs. the Phantom more than not. Valin's using a suboptimal match of the PC-1 on the Phantom would change things as well. I use the PC-1 on an arm w. an effectie mass of 18 gms. I have a resonant frequency of 10Hz. Placing it on the Phantom would place the resonant frequency slightly higher and result in a resonant frequency closer to 12 Hz. Which is still very good but not ideal. I really think tonearm matching is critical. This is not to say the Walker is anything else. But, if we are doing system comparisons and Valin's favorite cartridge on the Walker is the PC-1, then he should find his favorite cartridge for the Phantom and do a sytem shootout in totality. Honestly, even the phono stage would come into play in certain situations depending on the gain & impedance ofthe cartridge in play. |
Dear piedpiper: I agree with you and I agree too that it is " a more complex question ".
regards and enjoy the music.
raul. |
I agree with you in theory Raul, but in practice, the question becomes, "How does the Walker compare to other TT and arm combinations, IOW, any and all combinations.", a more complex question but, nonetheless, where the rubber hits the road in this case. |
Dear friends: This was part of what I posted in this tread ( in my first post: page 1. ):
+++++ " Now, I almost always support the tonearm/cartridge importance over the TT's one ( with almost any decent TT ). Here we have two top TT's designs that are totally different between each other not only the TT design it self but more important the tonearm/cartridge/cable stage where through it JV made the review.
Like you already posted and know things can/could be different if you change the tonearm in the Walker ( that you can't do it ) for the Phantom and the same for the Raven. " +++++
IMHO till you heard/hear two different TT's with the same tonearm/cartridge it is almost impossible to say which is a better TT ( any ). I heard the Walker in four different systems and I like it but I can't say " it is the better " because I heard too some other TTs in different systems ( including mine ) that are very good too.
The JV reviews ( or other comparisons. ) trying to compare the Walker against any other TT with a different tonearm is useless for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
This is almost getting boring folks! But, to satisfy anyone's curiosity, the Walker is still the best TT I have heard at any price and I OWN the TW Raven! Lloyd's TT has been on my radar since 1996 at the first Stereophile Show in NYC at which he showed. In my opinion, there is a richness that you get wilth the Walker that you do not get with any other TT and I think I have heard all the big contenders. I think the Black Pearl came closest to the Walker in Vegas 2007, but at a cost of $90K! Sorry Mike F., but I have not heard the Continuum live up to its rep at least at a show. Perhaps it does in a real life room/system outside of a hotel room. AND, I think that while Jon's review is good, it is not accurate. The Raven is not an integrated TT and the Walker is. Jon's review should have included at least one other tonearm/cartridge for a clearer assessment of what the table's attributes might be. Hell, the table is built to accomodate 4 arms! AND, I have heard Lloyd's table in his home and at two other friend's homes many times in real life systems. It is still the most engaging analog sound you can buy. AND, I love my Raven, but Lloyd's is still better! Enough said |
For a record player that is Thomas Woschnick first effort to bring to the market and to be reviewed along side the mighty Walker, should say something about the Raven.
The Raven is less then 1/2 the price of the Walker.
Even less in Europe
Valin makes this statement clear in print and on line...
The Walker is the best that he has heard, not to be confused with , it is the best there is.
Koegz, I see your point, you should wear a hat. |
never tempted, never concidered, have always known it was the better if not the best there is. take it any way you want. |
Koegz
And the point of your post is??
Does this make you feel better about your Walker Black Diamond than you did before or were you tempted to trade in on the TW Acustic until you read this enlightening Valin comment.
It would be interesting to see if Valin owns the Walker or has it on permanent loan as I am sure he would or has had to return the TW Raven.
|
tas page 92 issue 182 "GOLDEN EAR AWARDS'08" bottom of the page, a foot note. i quote "in passing, some people have misread my review to the superb TW Acustic turntable to mean I prefer it to the "more neutral" Walker Black Diamond. I do not. I still think the Walker is, overall, the best record player I've heard." |
Halcro,really happy for you!!Keep asking questions,and being a thinking hobbyist.Best to you,even though you didn't answer the door -:) Just kidding. |
Mark Doehmann, the genius designer and founder of Continuum Audio Labs visited yesterday to check my Copperhead set-up.
The arm of the anti-skate lever had not been drilled correctly so that there was no way to attach the arm thread to connect properly. Thankfully it wasn't my ineptness?
At the same time Mark saw the space restrictions which forced me to skew the counterweight to the wrong side, and by moving the Raven front motor to the rear of the deck, Mark was able to create room for all parameters of the Copperhead to be optimised.
So Phaser was correct in his initial assessment and the differences in sound are noticeable although Mark also claimed that even a poorly set-up Copperhead would work at 90% of its potential.
Even better news......in trying to adjust the VTA of the Davinci Grandezza, I found that the shaft was at its maximum extension in the locking collar which thus had little grip and obviously allowed movement in the whole arm pillar.
By inserting a ½" stainless steel spacer under the arm-board that Thomas Woschnick had belatedly sent,I was able to raise VTA and clamp the arm pillar firmly!
The 'bloated' sound has now disappeared and the sound of the 2 arms is much, much closer.
Now some REAL comparisons can begin.
So Sirspeedy and Phaser..........good calls, you were both right!
It was fascinating to hear Mark talk about his theories and designs and also about all the OTHER designs and designers out there? He knows every detail of every turntable and arm in the market....and even those NOT in the market?
Sorry to stray from the topic again? |
Many modern reviews today borrow vocabulary from adjacent technologies to describe the greater resloution and bandwidth of todays equipment. You will read terms like density, color, vividness; these are terms borrowed from home theatre that really have no definition in audio but are used because the old adjectives of detail, soundstage, depth are now almost obsolete. In video or digital applications, you can measure the color density, contrast ratio or resolution by defined parameters. For analog systems, these are not so clear. As such these descriptive adjectives could have different meanings to different readers. It would make sense to build some sort of glossary or dictionary to encompass these things. I for one would like to know for sure what the reviewer meant. |
Agreed Piedpiper.
But I think instead of same old same old, you would think we would have something definitive explaining causes and effect and answers by now to highlight why current SOA system still don't sound like a real thing (It sure comes close but still not there yet). I wish there were more clear expalnations available and research being done to overcome limitations, that's all.
Meanwhile, Enjoy our beloved systems and the music. |
Dgad, re the Adjust +, a 180 gm pressing is included. I agree it looks very interesting. I think I'll be getting one. |
Dear Nilthepill: IMHO the best ( perfect ) that we can/could have at home is to hear what is on the recording that is way far away from the live event from where comes that recording.
So, today trying to have in our room ( any ) the life-like presence or true realistic live performance is only our best " illusion/target ".
We can/could have only what is in the recording and that's why we have to take care to preserve with very high zealous that the cartridge signal pass for every single link ( in the whole audio/analog chain ) with loosing the less and adding the less where " loosing " means: the integrity of the cartridge signal and "adding " means: distortions/colorations/noises/inaccuracies at every single stage level.
For me this is the name of the game: " try to preserve intact the integrity on the cartridge signal: free of degradations. ".
Of course that this could be our target that it is almost impossible to achieve but we have to try!!!
IMHO as we have success in each stage/link audio system level preserving the integrity of the original sound signal then as we can/could have high/low quality level performance in our audio system.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Thanks everyone for your encouragement. I've been compelled to be quite thoughtful about all this because I am a professional musician, recording artist, sound engineer, audiophile, audio dealer and even sometimes audio designer/modifier. Aside from keeping me extremely busy, (I enjoy them all too much to let any of them go) I have had to work hard at coming to terms with integrating all those perspectives to my advantage.
Nil,
finding technology that at least approaches doing it all, is tricky but a worthy goal. Isn't that why were all here? |
I just checked out the Adjust+. Wow is all I can say. Another expense yet again but this one seems to make sense. Emailist, do you know if a record is provided w. it? I wonder if it is just software or not. I need a good soundcard anyhow for PC Audio - but that is for later.
Color, color, color. Doesn't every cartridge have its own color? The above explanation is amazing. |
Piedpiper, There is thread called "Capturing the MUSIC; a furtive cause? What R We..." under Misc audio where the link enlcosed imply this fact. Essentially Microphone don't hear as do our ears and there is some aspects lost - be it that 'third dimension' or freq response limitations, directional cues capture limitations, etc during current soa recording process. I wish there is more discussion there in that thread on that.
It is very hard to have a system that has details, presence, and warmth all the way to low mids and not ear bleeding at upper mids and high freq. I have found that when you have realistic tonal balance from top to bottom, the system end up sounding real as far as individual instruments go but overall sound scape tend to become 'small' and real life size and scale goes away. It is as if everything is truncated. This while correct does not overall sounds realistic. On the other hand systems with some color in upperbass, low mids sounds 'big' and right from scale and size perspective, looses out in leading edge definition, details and life-like presence. A high end EQ may be the solution. |
Piedpiper, you are right on the money. Great explanation! |
One answer is that most (ultimately all) recordings are not accurate, and it can sometimes take appropriate "colorations" to "restore" them to some semblance of naturalness, or enjoyability. Art is always an "amplification" of impressions of life/beauty; thus, all the flavors of ice cream that we find enjoyable. The recording artist brings their artfulness to the table, as do the engineer and producer, as does the listener, intentionally or not. |
So..... Why do we think colored sound ( with right color at right places) sounds like real as compared apparently accurate sound. May be we can get back to the topic at hand? |
|
On the topic of resonant frequency - The new Fiekert Adjust + software can display the resonant frequency of the arm/cart. It also lets you set azimuth and displays the amount of distortion the table is producing. I think the product is shipping the end of this month. http://www.adjustplus.de
I plan on ordering this - I have been dreaming of a product of this nature for some time. |
Dear Darren: +++++ " but in terms of tonearm / cartridge matching you are willing to ignore this. " +++++
no, I did not and I agree with you about the importance of resonance frequency between tonearm/cartridge, maybe I express oneself in the wrong way, this is what I posted about:
+++++ " What you hear on those cartridge/tonearm combinations is not the match between the tonearm effective mass and the cartridge compliance but the whole package that it is extremely complex for say the least. " +++++
the " whole package " where certainly ( no doubt about ) form very important part the tonearm/cartridge match on its resonance frequency. I'm sorry for not be so clear about.
Rgerads and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul,
I agree with you about all you said. But, others who have heard the XV-1s in my system agreed with my assesment. Maybe a system parameter was off, but it was checked thoroughly by me & some experts. On a different note, the XV-1s took a lot of time to break in. This is a major part of the problem. But even after break in, it is a more closed in cartridge than the ZYX. I prefer the Koetsu to the XV-1s in musical terms. But not in dynamic terms. I now have both with the PC-1.
I have heard the XV-1s in many systems, and it remains less detailed than the ZYX but more natural tonally. This is my ears and experience so please don't consider it the end all. I would consider it again for the price. It is well priced.
Now, on to tonearms. Yes to all you say but without getting the resonant frequency into the correct range you are not maximizing the performance of the cartridge no matter the tonearm design. The resonance will make the bass bloated and the treble distorted. It is simple physics. I am actually surprised by your assertion otherwise, as you argue as an absolute against all preamps w. a SUT base on specifications and engineering but in terms of tonearm / cartridge matching you are willing to ignore this.
Now if all things are equal or fairly close 8-12 Hz resonant frequeny, then we can have other design parameters which we can consider. Also tonearm/ turntable interface a tonearms ability to handle air born resonance and disipate it through the turntable or any other way is important. Now, these can be more important than what I mention above, but only if these parameters are truly not met at all.
It gets back to the weakest link. If any one item is poor it will affect all others. |
Dear Darren: If the name of the game was/is effective tonearm mass everything will be very easy/simple, unfortunatelly it is not.
Take a look to the three/four tonearms that you name it, really different between each other: different build material and resonance due to material kind, different bearing design and bearing material, different lenght, different internal wiring, different effective mass, different , different, different, you know the only tonearm coincidence between them is its raw name: tonearm, that's all.
What you hear on those cartridge/tonearm combinations is not the match between the tonearm effective mass and the cartridge compliance but the whole package that it is extremely complex for say the least.
I own/owned/heard all those tonearms and cartridges several times in different combinations so I know of what I'm talking about. I have heavy XV-1 sound performance cartridge experience in my system and in other systems and you are almost the only person that is not totally satisfied with it, maybe because your ears are different, maybe because your music sound priorities are different or maybe because you have a " trouble " else where in your system: who knows.
Any way, all those posts about tell us the critical importance of the tonearm in the quality cartridge performance and IMHO this is learning for all of us.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Sirspeedy I agree with all you have said and I think the poster you are speaking of is Thomasheid?
I have checked the parameters of set-up with the Davinci and whilst the geometry is spot-on, I'm experimenting with VTA and VTF hoping for that 'surprise' to which you allude. |
We do hear what you're saying Dgad, but when the actual Davinci arm manufacturer (Peter Brem), tells you that the Universe is a fine match with the Grandezza and is used by many owners of the arm that he knows......and when Thomasheid posts that his Davinci (out of all his tonearms), can take the widest variety of cartridges..........why do you insist on a mismatch issue here? |
I have owned both. I still own the Universe. Sirspeedy, your description fits my experience exactly. Still not one person here on this forum wants to answer my comment that the variation in compliance of the Universe will create different "ultimate" tonearm matchups for different owners. So, while in 1 system the Davinci is best in a 2nd system / w a different sample of the Univ the match can be bloated. I also will mention that this applies to many cartridge brands. My Titan I & Air Tight PC-1 are spot on. But Koetsus have been very low, not medium-low as specified. Why does everyone want to waste money on tonearms before they measure the cartridge compliance by dtermining the resonant frequency in an arm of know mass. You can easily reverse calculate it. Does anyone here own test records. All the information I am reading so far is irrelevant.
Albert, I loves the PC-1 but prefer the openness of the ZYX to the Dynavector. Yet both of us love the PC-1. Funny how 2 people have such different conclusions. Mind you I have both owner & heard several XV-1s samples. Very dynamic and natural...but nowhere near as detailed as the ZYX. It does have better bass & dynamics.
Tonearms used for my Comparison include a 10 gm effective mass SME V, Schroder SQ w 18 gms effective mass, and the Ikeda 407 w 35 gms mass. All cartridges moved between all arms. I now used the Universe on the SQ w the optional brass mounting plate which increase the effective mass of the SQ to 23 but 28 would be ideal. But my PC-1 is perfect w the 18 gm mass. Of course the Titan I is a perfect match in the Phantom. My resonant frequency measurements for the latter 2 is spot on 10Hz. The Universe is 12 to 13hz in the SQ at 23 gms mass. If I add Blutak to the headshell area I can get it to 10 perfectly & the treble is less shrill & the bass gets deep. |
"I prefer to think the Copperhead is such a leap forward,in tonearm design,that other arms are simply out of their league"......
Maybe so,but I have heard the Dynavector,and Universe,with vinyl I own and though there are differences,they are really not nearly as great as some would have you believe!
The XV-1s has a bit more meat on the bones,and the Uni is open,airy and filled with inner detailing(so is the XV-1s).
In NO way is the UNI bloated!...To me,both get a nine out of ten in overall performance.Both in similar classes,IMO....I've yet to hear a TEN! There is one experienced poster,who "I think" owns both cartridges.He also has the Davinci,and the Phantom/Triplanar/not to mention the Kuzma Airline.A fine and non confrontational fellow,but having a ton of analog experience.I believe him when he posts his thoughts.
If my memory serves me(I try to remember audio related stuff,which interests me)I believe he LOVES the Davinci,and stated that he felt it worked best with cartridges having more mass.I "think" the UNI is on the lighter side of the weight issue,so this could be one reason why it might not have stacked up to the Dynavector/ Copperhead so well.
Of course I am assuming,but I would bet the Davinci has "some" particular parameter a bit off.I have had loads of misfires in my own set up(some took months to "figure out"),and if I had this kind of money invested in "this" particular arm/cartridge combo,I think it might serve me best to play around alot.
A "surprise" might happen,and the Davinci might wake up.
Best. |
Halcro, in this instance I do not think the difference in sound between the two combinations is due to the Copperhead's pre-eminence in its field as the sound of the Copperhead/XV1s combination was very close to what I listen to every day as I mentioned in my post. Unfortunately you have not been able to listen to my system which while it has a quite different balance has that same ease/clarity you get with the Copperhead in the chain. I think it is just that the other combination for whatever reason - possibly an impedance mismatch with the phono stage(just grasping at straws here) just did not sound right.
It is always very difficult to compare across systems as we clearly have different priorities in our in our listening expectations but if a voice sounds natural it sounds natural. This was not the case with the Grandezza which leads me to think that there is something fundamentally wrong somewhere in the set up. I hope you find out what it is. |
This was not actually a cartridge review. Rather, it was an opinion on two arms each using a highly regarded cartridge. Both, for this listener in an unfamiliar system. It would be unfortunate if what was clearly observable - the high level of performance of the Copperhead arm was lost in a debate on the relative merits of the Universe and the XV1s. We did not have the opportunity to exchange cartridges but if we had I have a feeling that the differences between the cartridges would not have been as great as they were when in different arms.
One conclusion I feel I could make was that I would not like to have the 12" Grandezza with the Universe as my reference. From what others have said on this forum the Universe is capable of top notch performance and I have no reason to doubt this but I feel this is not the arm for it. Similarly the Grandezza may truly shine with another cartridge.
I will repeat, however that what I heard with the Copperhead leads me to believe it is capable of superlative performance and I have a feeling that its performance in Halcro's system was not as yet optimized (counterweight positioning and anti skate settings). I will await with interest his views once the designer has had the opportunity to tweak the arm. |
It was great to meet Phaser and Downunder and much listening was done.
I must agree with their opinions on the 2 arm/cartridge combinations but like you Dgad, I can't attribute the bloated sound to the ZYX Universe.
I've lived with the Universe for 18 months and with the Rega 3/Hadcock, it was simply the best cartridge i have ever heard.
I know that Peter Brem likes the Davinci/Universe combination and many have used it happily.
I prefer to think that the Copperhead is such a leap forward ( a watershed if you like), in tonearm design, that other arms (including top contenders like the Davinci), are simply out of their league.
I know this is hard to fathom in high-end audio where incremental improvements are hailed with fan-fare and gigantic improvements are viewed with suspicion, but Downunder's statement that the Copperhead/DV1s was "in a different universe" .....to the Davinci/Universe is true.....and frightening.
Unless there is something seriously wrong with the Davinci or the Universe or the set-up?........it is hard to accept such an advancement at the pointy end of Hi-Fi? |
Fully agree on the big Dyna. I thought my digital source reached a new high in terms of detail retrieval, but the Dyna surpassed it and had this liquid smoothness while placing all the instruments in correct proportion to each other on a big soundstage. Air Tight is one special cart which had the attack/immediacy that has not been matched elsewhere. The other one which I felt was special is the Lyra Titan. |
Having heard both the Universe and the Dynavector I'm not surprised at the results of this listening test. The Dynavector is one of the three or four best cartridges ever made and the Air Tight PC-1 is another.
When I had the Universe here on a friends Basis with Graham, I was totally under whelmed. Not my cup of tea. On the other hand, I plan on buying a Dynavector XV1s soon, to compliment my Air Tight.
Each to their own and so forth. |
Darren
In Halcro's system the davinci/universe did indeed sound bloated and ill controlled. |
Wow. A ZYX Universe souding bloated? Something sounds wrong. That would be the last thing I would say about the Universe. OTOH, the XV-1s should sound bloated but extremely natural. Suffice it to say, I am all confused. The DaVinci should be a great combination w. the ZYX provided the ZYX has a low enough compliance. If not then all is lost. The ZYX often has variable compliance.
Halcro, did you try the ZYX in the Copperhead? I know you said you tried a Graham. In your system?
Can anyone tell me if they did a resonance test on thier cartridges to determine if in the optimal range. Until then I only remain interested. Not persuaded. |
Speedy
We don't mix with guys that no nothing about tennis, let alone hifi!! just kidding
Is federer past his best?? God I hate Novak Jokovic!!
luv Anna Ivanovic :-)
YOu can come ova my place anytime mate |
Phaser/Halcro/Downunder....One of you guys could have had the courtesy of answering the door bell,during "the" listening session!I also knocked "very" hard,especially after spending twelve hours on the plane to get there.
I heard alot of music coming from within,but no sounds of "life"!...SO...I took my superb Shiraz and went over to the local tennis courts,where I picked up a very nice game,and afterwards enjoyed the wine,with some "locals"(they turned out to be real "kidders") -:)
Maybe next time...G'day! |
Halcro, many thanks once again for the great hospitality you showed Downunder and me. A most enjoyable day listening to both well known music and some new which I would like to hear again. While we listened to the Grandezza with the Universe and the Copperhead with the XV1s and therefore the comparisons between arms were less than ideal, I agree with Downunder that the Copperhead /XV1s combination was far superior. I must sate up front that it was the first time I had heard either arm or either cartridge and the system's balance was different to mine.
We were hearing in my view more the differences between the arms than differences between the cartridges. The Grandezza sounded rather bloated and less articulate. I am not talking nuance here. The differences were truly significant. With the Copperhead/XV1s combination the sound was far more controlled with little apparent emphasis in any part of the audio spectrum and just more natural and compelling in presentation. More detail if you will but with a greater level of relaxation as well.
For me, the Copperhead/XVis came closer in overall balance to my Vector 4/Orpheus combination. Given this listening experience, the Copperhead really looks like a contender. An impressive performance and well worth further enquiry as far as I am concerned |
Two questions:
1. Halcro: Do you know whether the difficulties setting up the Copperhead are also endemic to the Cobra?
2. Anyone: Is anyone aware of the US pricing for these two cartridges? |
Well, Phaser and I had the pleasure to spend a few hours listening to halcro's system today.
To keep it short. The3 copperhead/XV-1s combination was in a different universe to the Davinci/universe combo.
The copperhead/xv1s combo was just sooo much better period. |
Mr. Valin
I sincerely apologize for my comments...
For a lack of a better word, I was flabbergast with the Zanden 1200 in a system I heard last year. |
