I take with a large grain of salt most of the comments I read above for those several instances of an Orpheus not having even 100 hours on it If someone tried to convince me that a $5000 cartridge couldn't tell a timpani from a bass drum or Linda from Dolly I'd be skeptical too. (I just played an Emmylou/Dolly/Linda tune and even my poor aging Shelter 901 had no problem timbrally differentiating their voices.) If your post was in a major publication I see little reason for any of us to want to acquire the new Tranny over the "UNI". I can appreciate this comment. Major publication reviewers typically use components for several months. And rightly so. First impressions can be telling, but they can also be incomplete. And even when you know a component is still new and not broken-in, it can be difficult not to believe you have its measure. Requiring one live with a piece of gear for a few months helps assure break-in and reduce premature assessment. One characteristic I find definitely requires time to gauge is the overall balance of a component - its 'Goldilocksness' if you will. Can't be done in a few hours. Indeed that characteristic seemed to be a main point of the review that starts this thread: it takes some little time until the superior characteristics of the Orpheus make themselves apparent. It is fortunately neither hyperdynamic, nor super-spacious, nor even mega-technicolored. The Transfiguration achieves more in all the named criteria than at least 95 percent of all cartridges, but nowhere does it allow itself the least extravagance. There is so much paid-for-tout on the forums nowadays and so much investment in expensive gear without audition that I find Judgement requires a certain critical mass to filter the outliers. And its hard to dance well when they're shootin' at your feet. None of this is to question what anyone hears, just to caution the presumption of a verdict based on small evidences and limited groove time - regardles of the karat-weight of the cochleae involved. I like to keep this in mind if for no other reason than respect for the folks who devout their all to creating the products we critique. I hope my friend does not read Audiogon,as we thought we were happy,last week. Speedy, your are *so* quotable. :-) The way I read your post about your session with your friend, you were happy and excited about the "O" and felt it was fraught with prospect. Don't let 'em take this away. I suspect the ending of the O-story remains to be writ. On a different note, two questions for Doug: i) What gain options does your phonstage offer and what gain was in use for your U/O listening session? ii) I think I understand the notion of electronics having a noise floor. In the case of a cartridge, where does noise get introduced? From stylus or external vibrations not getting resolved by a tonearm - a sort of mechanical feedback into the cantilever causing ghost frequencies not originating from the vinyl? (Forgive me if its a dumb question - there's a lot I don't know about cartridges.) And thanks for your writeup! Tim |
Speedy - if you factor trade-in and cost out of the equation, what does your experience tell you about the differences and strengths between the Orpheus and the XV-1s?
Cheers,
Tim
|
My friend,and I went through multiple diaper changes yesterday.I MUST HAVE IT!!!! Who among us can imagine the stones of wild Ciconian women deflected mid toss by the charms of Orpheus as his song titilates them to rapturous incontinency. Alas, we know what happened next. Click, next slide please. A double helping of thanks for their stories of 'O' to Andrew and SirSpeedy. Mark, how many hours were on your friend's Orpheus when your setup began? Can you say where VTF ended up? I'd love to hear more from each of you. Tim |
Ultra tight magnet-coil coupling. The coils are not just close but literally right inside, with coil-magnet proximity of only a few thousandths of an inch. It may be 'marketing speak' but it certainly is sexy, and I, for one, am intriqued. ;-) My question is this: with such fine tolerances, what does that mean for the suspension and its lifespan? Cheers, Tim |
Try Tchaikovski's 4th, 3rd movment. This is the solo that strikes fear in the heart of piccolodeum. Only 21 notes at forte, but they require delivery in a scant three seconds. Done at volume with proper tonal inflection and nary a whiff of smearing nets a check in the plus column for the system that can.
|
I don't want to have the "I can recognize it's a piccolo",confused with "WOW,listen to that breathy timbre,and natural TOOT,on that darn piccolo". Speedy - yes exactly. Piccolos (and flutes) have their timbre - and that of breath across a hole in *metal* is unique and not quite as sweet as wood. Bodies can be wood or metal. I agree it is indeed tougher to catch the breathy quality of a piccolo versus, say,a flute. IMO, getting that breathy quality right also means getting the timing and microdynamics right, especially on passages as the one I cited. Tonality alone goes a long way though I believe the 'quality of the real' rolls up dynamics, timing, and tonality. We can dissect and analyze, but it is the synthetic capacity of both musician and system that delivers the magic. Until I get off the pot and decide on a cartridge, my system will remain, as you say, 'merely very good'. This discussion of the Orpheus makes it sooo tantalizing. Thanks to Nsgarch amd Bc3 for your insights. |
...so are you saying we should keep our cartridges and spend the money on pot? LOL!! My goodness Bodidharma - get the flowers off the windshield. I'll go write that 100 times in a penitent hand. My audio habit, er, hobby is sufficiently transcendent, thank you. Although either way I'm still not likely to remember what I was spinning two weeks ago. ;-> Deciding between things whose character is fundamentally aural is not best done on paper. I'll nominate Doug to set up 'The Cartridge Company' (like that cable outfit) where we can try/rent several before making a decision. My paper choices (for today anyway) remain the XV-1s and the Orpheus - so please arrange to include those among the candidates. If you must throw in a Uni, well, Ok. I'll kindly beta test the focus group questions for your customer experience eval and we can call it even! :-) Now, who's smoking what? Cackle! |
Yes - thanks for the report! And ques ça c'est 'Sonic Fireworks'?
|
I am sure that Doug would want the UNIverse to be better than the O since he has invested in the UNIverse ... Larry, I'm not invested with an expensive cartridge (yet) and I don't have a lot of dog in this fight, but I'm gonna disagree with your apologism. In contrast to the above quote, I don't see this as a zero sum game and I'll suggest it is counterproductive to turn the discussion into winners and losers. And yes, I am likewise bothered by the constant drumbeat of "my stuff is the best". It comes across to me as hucksterism. Besides, my stuff is best. :-) Doug, your dismissive tone raised my hackels. I don't question integrity or intent - thats just what I felt when I read your 'review'. It came across as "we have golden ears and this thing is flawed". Indirect analogies like the one made between the Orpheus and the PV-11 did not sit well. In the run-up of excitement and anticipation, what reaction did you expect? Even though they were stated in an irritating way, I got value from your comments and I appreciate your taking the time to write them and will agree with Larry that I look forward to your sharing further experience. Whether your observations prove the exception or the definitive pronouncement or something in between, at this point I think we need more input. No other reports I've read indicate the same level of sonic abberration from the O, and Transfiguration has a proven ability to make excellent cartridges. Sure it may turn out to be turd - wouldn't be the first mistake in high-end audio - but we're not there yet. It would be really valuable to hear a comparison done in some different tonearms. Perhaps the Triplanar does not drain well the very frequencies the Orpheus may not damp; perhaps like the Universe, the O may be arm sensitive; perhaps Tranny's sound great in Phantoms but not so great in Ikedas, etc. etc. etc. Maybe under optimal conditions the Uni actually earns its $2k premium. I'm sure there are combinations for every cartridge and tonearm that show both well and poorly. That's why I suggest we be sensitive to context, and not too quick to speak with finality. I read Raul's remarks here as spot-on. Few of us would say "I get more enjoyment listening to my stereo than you do yours". So let's agree to pull back a bit from one-upmanship about equipment. No one wants to make a mistake with an expensive purchase, but that doesn't mean there has to be only one 'best'. Likewise, as Speedy says, debate is good and no reason not to 'have at it'. I offer that we share a common enjoyment of music and there are lots of different routes to an enjoyable hobby. By the time you get to page 3, these threads usually exhibit a bit of testiness, so I suppose we're right on schedule. ;-> Cheers, Tim |
Tim, I don't think I read the same posts by Doug that you read. Perhaps, but I'm guessing we read the same post, Dan_ed - you just had a different reaction to it than I did. It seems that you and a few others have taken his words to mean that his opinion is the definitive word. I did not take them that way, but some of those words struck me as if their author did. I appreciate your standing up for Doug and hope you'll share the belief that its OK if our readings of his review are different - as long they're had in good faith. (And I'll offer to do the forensic wordsmithery on a per phrase basis if you feel my remarks are disengenuous, but I can't change the way I reacted to the tone.) People were starting to jump on Speedy. I thought hearing another opinion - one that was not singing with the (now obviously prodigious) choir - might lay false the notion he was the only one with a less than satisfactory reaction, albeit for different reasons. :-) Thesis, antithesis - we must be getting close to page 4. Tim |
I just got my copy and had to read what the fuss was all about. To quote a concluding snippet from Fremer's review in Stereophile v29.no12, p.34: A superb cartridge. By the way, what happened to the banging noise? I thought it carried both a zestful immediacy and timbral weight in the mid-bass. ;-> Tim |
Andrew - were there particular epiphany points during break-in (30 hrs, 60 hrs, etc.) where things really gelled, or have improvements kinda trickled in across time? Thanks for taking the time to post your reports.
Wrt to arm position and 1.5 degree SRA - probably good to remember that different arms on different tables will yield different relative up/down positions. With my SME V + Teres, 6mm up from stylus vertical still has the back-end of the tonearm down relative to the cartridge end.
On a side note, I tried checking azimuth via the 50x scope and first-surface mirror method. Yes, I had to tape the mirror to the table to cantilever it out from platter so I could position the scope. And I bent my flexible Littl Lite to bounce off the mirror right between the front of the scope and the cartridge. Got a decent image. But eventually I gave up.
One problem was the thinness of the cartridge profile viewed head on. It was hard to gauge the "equality of the X" across the real and reflected stylus. Nowhere as obvious as the side view for setting vertical SRA. Plus I was never sure the scope lens was absolutely perpendicular to a line bisecting the stylus head-on - if the scope is off just a little on either side, it makes a difference in perception of the angles. I suspect it might be do-able by someone with better eyes. 8-) Maybe a scope with a reticle or cross hairs might be helpful in setting the stylus at 90 degrees to the mirror surface.
But isn't it really the coils or engine we're trying to get positioned? Using the physical stylus position should get close on a well made cartridge, but even there, the stylus is probably no more absolutely guaranteed in the proper position relative to the coils than anything else on a cartridge. It was cool to do, but I think I'll stick with the meter method then ears.
Cheers,
Tim
|
The teeny tiny changes needed to get azimuth right are a reality. I use the cheaper version of Wally's Analog Shop - bought it a few years ago before the price leaped up. Took me several hours of patient patience to move my SME's adjustable headshell just so. We're talking a movement distance of less than or equal to the thickness of a line on a ruler, less than the thickness of a line drawn with a thin-tip ballpoint pen. You cannot breath out while you do this!
The reason I give priority to the Wally instead of my ears is assurance of repeatability from one day to the next, and being able to get the crosstalk lower. Do your best with your ears, then measure with the Wally. My ears got me inside 4dB, Wally got me under 1dB. An expensive cure for audiophilia nervosa but I'm happy to have the device.
Tim
|
While none of us have the same room, few of us have the same system, and many of us don't even have the same records, I think there is merit in review descriptions sufficient to allow a reader to reproduce the music the reviewer heard. And its not much of stretch to take that same perspective to equipment setup and use.
Generally, more information is more useful and less is less. Imo, the bare minimum for a review is reference to the records - preferably to the tracks - used as the basis of a description. I know I try to get as close to denoting what I hear ("the opening triangle in the Allegro... blah blah blah") so my reader can at least get to the same sound even if he doesn't have the same equipment. You don't want to over do it, but its very helpful (for me anyway) to cross check my ears and my system with what someone else hears and the more information you give me so I can do that, the better.
So sure - even if I don't own a $100k Kielbasa (or whatever is Mikey's table), I would like to know where he ended up with load or VTA so I can gauge the state of the O in my own system. No different a question for him than it is for any other owner or longer term user. Geeky - ok, call it geeky, but read most of the threads here - folks invested in multi-$k gear value info about the details.
Admittedly few readers will have the component they are reading about, so a majority of the reviewer's audience may not care about setup details. Until, of course, they become owners. Imo it is not a complete waste when a review lacks information about product setup and use, but a review can be so much better when the writer includes it. That info takes the writer out of the realm of prosaist into the realm of product user. Maybe that was Neal's point.
Cheers,
Tim
|
Thanks Dan_ed and Doug - here are manufacturer's specs for the Orpheus. Relatives arriving so more later...
Weight: 9 g
Dynamic compliance: 13 x 10 to the minus 6cm/dyne
Stylus: Ogura PA (3 x 30 µm) solid diamond
Output voltage: 0.48mV (3.54cm/second, 1 KHz)
Internal impedance: 2.5 ohms
Frequency response: 10Hz - 20Hz +1.5dB 20kHz - 40 kHz + 2dB
Channel separation: > 30 dB, 200Hz - 1 kHz
Channel balance: < 0.5dB, 1 kHz
Best wishes for a happy Christmas season,
Tim
|
You're right that VTF must be absolutely spot-on before you can truly optimize VTA/SRA. Doing that by ear requires listening for:
a) the integration or timing of fundamentals vs. harmonics (what Frank Schroeder and I hear) or,
b) the quickest rise/fall times and greatest amplitudes of individual notes, especially bass notes (what Paul hears). One of my New Year's resolutions may be to wonder less if I'm a few angels shy of a pin full and wonder more at the music itself. Those might not be mutually exclusive activities, but its not New Years yet. So maybe Doug and others can elaborate on what/how one listens when making small changes. Sometimes the vocabulary we use strikes me as chunkier than the product of the fine grained adjustments it attempts to describe. I'm fascinated as much by the assessment part of the process as the analytics and rationales. From the above, I interpret 'a)' (integration of fundamental and harmonics) as the absence or lessening of what I call tonal 'smearing'. To me this is as much a temporal issue as it is anything, but I'd love for anyone to elaborate further. Several hundred messages ago in this thread we mentioned the piccolo solo in the third movement of Tchaikovski's 4th - many notes in a short span of time. When the leading edges bump into the trailing edges, such that notes are less tonally individuated, I call this 'smearing'. A smeared single note is slightly 'de-focused' tonally, it is less 'compact' as if its harmonics slather outside proper temporal boundaries. Correlating back to reality, better 'tonal focus' means homing in on the setup sweet spot. Is this at all close to what you're talking about?? Wrt to 'b)', I think I grasp listening for amplitude, but help me out with listening for 'quickest rise/fall time'. More words (heh) or an example? Without knowing better, I'd think this was ultimately the same thing as 'a)' put differently, but that could just mean I'm confused. Apologies if my phenomenological bent goes against the grain of the thread - just more universal struggle for understanding what is sometimes tough to put into words. Betwixt the turn of the dial, the tenth of the degree, and the ear is where I'm working. How, or to what, do you listen for the effect of the changes you're making? Ho, ho, ho, Tim |
