2. analog
  3. 127090-486

The Palladian-A step beyond

The new cartridge from Acoustical Systems may finally be the LOMC to fully realise the theoretical advantages of the genus.
And convince those long-suffering audiophiles to whom the 'modern' MC presentation has been anathema to 'live sound'....that the realism of vintage LOMCs like the SPUs and FR-7 series has finally been recaptured 👀
IMAGE 1 
IMAGE 2 
IMAGE 3 
IMAGE 4 
IMAGE 5 
IMAGE 6 
IMAGE 7 
128x128halcro

Showing 5 responses by sampsa55

sampsa55
73 posts
 
Halcro: Thanks for bringing this up. Sounds very promising, though pricey.

Is it the quest for seemingly greater detail retrieval demanded by aging audiophile ears and the ‘rational’ that higher pricing is synonymous with ‘revealing’ (I hate that word) cartridges?

I never understood why someone might prefer a "revealing" component? Is the objective to find flaws in recordings & other gear or to enjoy music? 


What I do find illuminating is how a cartridge handles the ‘worst’ of recorded music.

Yes. Exactly.


sampsa55
73 posts
 
From Lewm:
Besides damping spurious resonances one can also sink the energy that affects the magnitude of the resonance. This is what I think might be happening with the FR64S/66S. It may be that the tonearm is efficient at draining resonant energy away from the cartridge body and headshell. Because, as Raul correctly states, there is no impediment to energy transmission along the arm tube and back to the pivot and base structure, it may be that the energy is effectively drained away or "sinked".

While he is not a fan of the FR64s/66s, Jonathan Carr of Lyra has commented extensively on this principle of draining energy and it seems like a very valid approach:

In general, my cartridge designs use the arm as a path to bleed off excess vibrational energy (after the energy from the LP groove is used to move the cartridge coils and generate an electrical signal, it serves no useful purpose and is best gotten rid of as quickly and completely as possible). Therefore, my cartridge designs definitely prefer arms with stiff, non-resonant armpipes, and bearings that are completely free of slop or chatter. If the tonearm doesn't fit the above requirements, the tonal balance of the cartridge is likely to turn brighter and harder, due to excess vibrational energy reflecting off the arm and getting back into the cartridge coils.
http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=vinyl&n=165118


sampsa55
73 posts
 
So far, there is no perfect cart and I doubt if this is. I'm guessing the trade off is harmonic detail, texture and layering. Being able to unravel the Stephen Stills or Respighi implies omission,

Are you really saying that being able to enjoy a previously unlistenable record means that the cartridge is leaving something out, effectively hiding the flaws of the record?


sampsa55
73 posts
 
Obviously the words "guessing" and "implies" means it's conjecture, but it's a possibility, a likely one.

"Implies" is a logical conclusion, not a conjecture...


Find a master tape dub of the recordings in question and you'll find out.

Why would he or anyone bother? If the cartridge makes previously unlistenable records listenable that alone should be great, but it also extracts more information. Most would be very happy and just enjoy listening.

sampsa55
73 posts
 
Wouldn’t the amplitude (movement) of the cantilever be the same for both families of cartridge?

Not necessarily. In both cases, the stylus follows the groove, but there could be differences in the extent to which groove modulations move the cantilever relative to the tonearm and the tonearm relative to its pivot. A stiffer cantilever suspension could well mean less cantilever movement and more tonearm vibration.



More to discover