Doug: Neil. I haven't checked other TriPlanars, but on this one a slightly tail down arm results in a parallel cartridge Then I think you should send the whole TA back to Tri and have him check the headshell alignment. Something wrong with either the headshell or cartridge mounting hardware, perhaps the ZYX spacer plate. slightly tail down arm results in // vertical SRA. My SME is also tail-down with vertical SRA, but vertical SRA is not what we're after. So, once you found vertical SRA (as I explained elsewhere) then the TA post needs to go up about 6mm to achieve the nominal 1.5 degrees SRA. At that point the TA wand should be parallel, or even sligntly nose down. Put another way, and assuming a proper undamaged 23 cm.TA: were I to mount a cartridge and set the TA for vertical SRA (using my scope and mirror) and then after raising the TA post 6mm (to get nominal 1.5 degree SRA) discover that the TA wand was still sloping backward, I would return the cartridge AS DEFECTIVE (stylus improperly mounted in the cantilever)!! Intelligent mechanical design demands that tonearms (including unipivots and most straight line trackers) have their horizontal pivot axis ABOVE the stylus' point of contact with the record, and not below. This, along with the more recent move to underslung counterweights, insures mechanical stability of the entire system with respect to gravity (e.g. improving the ability to better track warped records ;--) My point is, that after going through proper setup procedure, including the use of a scope and mirror to determine vertical SRA (THERE'S SIMPLY NO OTHER PRACTICAL WAY TO DO THIS AT HOME!) still, if by some ironic miracle, one wound up with the correct 1.5 degree SRA, yet the cartridge and/or arm were sloping backward, then the cartridge and/or arm would need checking and service because one or both of them are defective or damaged. Frankly, I doubt there's anything wrong with either your arm or your cartridge, and I'd be more than happy to send you whatever tools you lack to carry out this VERY NECESSARY determination. Can you imagine trying to cut a record without watching the ENTIRE PROCESS through a microscope? Personally, I've NEVER met a cartridge that needed to be raked backward to achieve proper SRA, or that sounded better that way . . . . . unless it was loaded at 47Kohms ;--) . |
Neil,
I was checking SRA before fine tuning by ear for years before you ever posted about it. Spare us your smarmy "advice".
BTW, Jon Risch published the SRA methodology that some here give you credit for back in 1999, long before you did. While I have mentioned Jon's article repeatedly you have never acknowledged his pioneering work, though you apparently don't mind taking credit for it.
I wonder if SirSpeedy includes plagiarism in his definition of dishonesty? He's our expert on that subject.
|
Nsgarch wrote: Oh really? I wonder what Nakatsuka-san would think of a customer who thought him such a sloppy craftsman as to make a cartridge that had to be raked BACKWARD to achieve proper SRA? (to say nothing of the hurt feelings of the tonearm designer!)
I guess a proper comparison remains in the future . . . . Heh, more blind and incorrect assumptions, Neil. I haven't checked other TriPlanars, but on this one a slightly tail down arm results in a parallel cartridge and vertical SRA. That has been true with Denons, Shelters, Koetsus, ZYX's and now Trannys. We did not and do not play with negative VTA or SRA. I guess a post from you based on first hand experience remains in the future... |
I agree with the point made by Larryi and cmk that cartridge evaluation is part of the complete system.
However, that does not change the fact that some cartridges are quieter, track better, and retrieve more information than others.
Could most of live with a number of cartridges? Probably. If you could choose only one, what are your criteria? Mine are mentioned previously. |
"I really can't see how any phono component can be evaluated other than as part of an evaluation of the complete system."
This is a very critical point often overlooked and I wholly-heartedly agree with Larry on this.
I too did listen to a host of top flight carts - Urushi, Allearts MC1B, Dynavector Te Kaitora and XX2, and at the end of the day, the conclusion was similar to Positive Feedback's Roger Gordon, who concluded saying "Each of the three cartridges gives a slightly different view of the music, but all three views are equally valid and equally beautiful. I could easily live with any of them."
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue22/cartridges.htm |
Neil, I nominate Raul to be the host of a comparison meeting. That way we all get a vacation in Mexico and hear some really great reproduction! (Plus we can spend his money on cartridges. :) )
Perhaps I missed it somewhere in Andrew's posts, but was he also running VTA tail down when the 47K loading sounded good in his system? If that's true it seems to contradict the theory that this VTA setting is the culprit.
|
I have the O in my system right now. I borrowed it from a friend. It does not yet have 100 hours on it, so I will withold judgment on its ultimate performance. So far, in my system, I rather like its sound. It has a good, well integrated and tight bottom end, a touch elevated in the midrange (relative to my Titan), and is a bit shut down at the very top (less "air" than the Titan). Then again, I really have not tried to optimize setup for this cartridge. To change loading in my phono stage, I have to take it apart and solder in different resistors. That is why I am sticking with 1k ohms right now. It is also set at very slightly low (tail down) for VTA. Actually, a friend lent me a custom phono stage that was built specifically for a Helikon and it sounds even better than my stage with the O.
I find it interesting how vigorous is the debate on the relative merits of the O vs. the Z, particularly when everyone's system is so different. When I switched to my friend's stage, the sound was completely different from that of my stage. I really can't see how any phono component can be evaluated other than as part of an evaluation of the complete system.
I've heard so many different, yet all enjoyable set ups to get into a "who's best" kind of argument. |
Dear Doug: I think is important to know one spec about your phonolinepreamp unit that could help to understand what are you hearing through it.
That spec is: inverse RIAA eq. deviation between 20 to 20khz.
The Andrew CAT has a manufacturer spec on this regard of: +,- 0.1 db from 20 to 20kHz.
Could you find it for us?
Thx in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Raul,
We did not evaluate a broad range of VTA in Doug's system . Paul tried several setting within a small range but I beleive all of the settings put the arm lower than parallel. Although, I preferred one of these settings, we did not make large enough changes to evaluate the cartridge with a parallele or slightly elevated arm.
The first thing I'll do this weekend is to see how the sound changes when I adjust the arm to be slightly lower than parallel. Based on doing this in the past, I expect it to deteriorate.
We only had a mistracking problem with that one track and I haven't experienced it in my own system. Can an improper VTA accentuate this? My cartridge did get wacked around just a little bit after running through two revolutions on a highly irrelgualr warped record. however, I didn't perceive any sonic degradation after this occured. Therefore I think the cartridge suspension is ok. As far ar the mfg recommended break-in time of 30 hours, I would be skeptical based on a) advice from Ttranny owners, 2) Bad advice in the instructions on VTF and loading.
We changed the volume between cartridges since they had different outputs.
Andrew |
Dan, as I've already said, I'd really love to hear a UNI if there's anyone in Tucson or Phoenix who has one? Decently set up? Please, invite me over?
I still intend to listen (with my Temper W) to the critical passages Doug identified on the Trio and Sonic Fireworks albums. (I've pulled them out, so that's a start ;--)
But it's become quite consistant now, that every time I run across someone who says they prefer the sound of their LOMC at the 47K load impedance, I eventually discover they've set their stylus at < 1 degree SRA or even < 0 degrees SRA!
Chicken/egg-wise, the "47K" generally happens first. The person installs a brand new phono preamp out-of-the-box, which 90% of the time is set to a default 47K. Then they start playing records, and adjusting the tonearm (SRA) up and down 'til the treble stops shreiking, and lo and behold, the tonearm is tilted backward! I KNOW! I USED TO DO THE SAME THING MYSELF! In my youthful enthusiasm to "see how it sounds" and my youthful ignorance of the mechanical/electrical requirements that must be attended to first, I unwittingly put the cart before the horse. And thought I was soooo cool!
Moral of the story: while age alone is certainly no guarantee of wisdom, youth is attended always by a certain amount of ignorance ;--)
. |
Dear Andrew: +++++ " In Doug's system, Paul felt the VTA for the O was just right when the tonearm was moderately lower than parallel. Similar position used for the Universe. " +++++
It is a big surprise to me that two different stylus type cartridges with different electrical design and build characteristics can perform at the same top performance level at the exactly the same SRA.
+++++ " In my system, I have the tonearm pivot base adjusted so that the tonearm is moderatley higher than parallel. " +++++
The question is: do you agree with the O SRA set up on Doug system?
The other important subject is if both cartridges have the same output level, can you tell me about? did doug changes in the volume position each time that you change of cartridge hearing?
Btw Andrew, I read that the O needs only 30 hours and if this figure is right I'm really worried about the O mistracking problem because according to specs the O tracking ability is higher than 70um at 1.8gr that is a good spec and that figure increment maybe to 80-85um at the VTF that you run it at Doug's place, this could mean that your O could have a suspension problem, I can't really sure and is better that you ask to your dealer about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
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 am not going to post on this subject again(I hear the applause),but I never picked up on the "stated" vta backward shift,in the Uni vs "O" comparison.That is definitely an incorrect setting in my own,and friend's system.It happens to impact dearly,in how it sounds.A year ago Nsgarsh corrected my own positioning,which was slightly backward.The bottom of the cartridge sounds better when riding parallel to an lp.Of course fine tuning by ear can aid,to an extent,but it "should" look almost "exactly" parallel.Of course that's only an opinion based on two owners of Tranny's.Nsgarsh would make three,I guess.The pre/phonostages in use are not too shabby either,and I won't tout the mfgr,or folks who completely re-built and modded mine.If you carefully read the instructions,coming with the cart.,it states the correct positioning of the stylus tip,when viewed from the side(Nsgarsh re-emphsized this to me last year,as I was a bit in the dark,and had Tranny's for some time,but hey,I slipped up,at the time),which shows a backward stylus tip rake.This correct position is re-inforced with the parallel position.BTW,as my system has been down for six months,I have recently set-up,as of Saturday.With all the new gizmos I have added,I find the 100 ohm setting sounds best,now.See things change!!
Anyone thinking I actually have an agenda is "clueless" as to my intent.I am not insecure regarding my hearing,or set-up,as I have been accused of.To me,my intent was incorrectly interpreted by some.I will be more guarded should I decide to continue,in the future.
A condescending attitude,and preaching about how I should organize my thoughts first(as stated,for the third time by Cello)is actually something I find offensive, and I will state how I feel about any subject.I am greatful for Doug's posting,as well as all else,but I also feel I should listen to my friend(who owns the Orpheus,and who would not bother here'in).
Best!
Mark
|
Great idea, Neal. When are you planning to make the comparison? |
Dear raul: I agree with you too: there are no bad cartridges. Only voodoo science and pretzel logic ;--)
Neil
. |
Dear neil: I agree with you about SRA.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
In Doug's system, Paul felt the VTA for the O was just right when the tonearm was moderately lower than parallel. Similar position used for the Universe. Oh really? I wonder what Nakatsuka-san would think of a customer who thought him such a sloppy craftsman as to make a cartridge that had to be raked BACKWARD to achieve proper SRA? (to say nothing of the hurt feelings of the tonearm designer!) I guess a proper comparison remains in the future . . . . |
Hi Andrew,
I'd love a trip down to Hot 'lanta. It's been many years since I was there.
It seems to me that we can rule out a difference in arms since both you and Doug are using the same arm. I have also wondered about the arm position on Doug's Triplanar but it does sound correct with the Universe. It does seem that there is something reacting differently in your's and Doug's systems. That's what makes this such a crazy, nutty hobby!
Hi again Raul,
After looking up the specs on the Dunlavy's and the B&W 803 I can see that there is a difference in LF reach, although that is not what Doug posted as what he perceived was missing from the O. So we are all left wondering what could be the issue at 47K loading, but it's hard for us to say since we were not there to hear what has been described.
Tim, I don't think I read the same posts by Doug that you read. I believe that Doug on several occasions has stated that this whole exercise is nothing more than some fun between a few enthusiasts. He never offered his observations as anything more than what was heard with his system and two different cartridges in a few hours of listening. It seems that you and a few others have taken his words to mean that his opinion is the definitive word. You applied that spin.
While I do appreciate Doug's opinions I certainly am not ready to go along with the conclusions that some here have reached about disregarding the O based on these written comments when I have not heard this cartridge in anyone's system. The issue, from my perspective, has not been what Doug has had to say about the O. Many people are going to have different opinions on that. The issue here is that someone, one of us, has offered an honest opinion only to have their honesty and motives attacked by some. |
All,
The sound differences we heard between the O and Uni in Doug's system with his optimal settings aside, I've been thinking more and more about why the O didn't sound as good in Doug's system compared to mine. My impressions of the O in my 9-8-06 post did not seem to come through when we heard it in Doug's system.
Of course our systems are different, maybe the cartridge was damaged in transit (unlikely) or maybe it had to do with VTA.
In my system, I have the tonearm pivot base adjusted so that the tonearm is moderatley higher than parallel. i.e., there is more SRA or VTA.
In Doug's system, Paul felt the VTA for the O was just right when the tonearm was moderately lower than parallel. Similar position used for the Universe.
I wonder if this contributes significantly to the differences I hear between these cartridges in the different set ups and maybe even to the differences between the cartridges. Maybe the O prefers a higher SRA than the Universe?
We did not try setting the O at or above parallel. I now wish we would have tried the higher VTA just to rule that out.
Anyway, I think another comparison after break-in and with a higher range of VTA would be fruitful.
Dan, Doug, you're welcome to head down to Atlanta to compare all three. If not, I may be able to make it up again.
Sorry to the Tranny fans for some controversial results. But as I said, in my system it sounds absolutely fabulous. |
Dear Andrew: +++++ " . I can happily live with the sound that I get in mys system... " +++++
This is the most important subject to you.
+++++ " how amazing the Uni must sound in my system.. " +++++
I don't know but maybe you will be surprised about!!!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Doug: I don't want to repeat here what I already posted to Dan ( before I read yours ), there where some answers about.
I don't want, too, start with an U controversy ( please don't ), far from there.
Doug, somewhere I posted that I never had the opportunity to heard the U only a Fuji and a 3. From my very first posts about I always give my personal opinion about ZYX cartridges: faulty at both frequency extremes range, especially at the low bass. Remember?.
The Andrew opinion about is, at least, the five other opinion in this forum about the U little problem bass performance. If you recall, I told you that you could not hear the U bass problems because your audio system can't goes low down, remember?. Well nothing is change and you are right I never heard the U and if the designer can't fix the low bass subject is useless for me to heard it, as a fact I want to buy a ZYX unit but something a little better than the U and I'm not saying that the U is not a good cartridge: it is, the subject is that at the moment I own several good cartridges and I need no more but something better. How " sound " you the U2?, I have to wait for it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dan: The Andrew Dunlavy Audio Labs SC-IVa speakers are almost full range and only a subwoofer system could beat it in the bass regard.
The differences in the quality sound perception ( everything else the same ) between a full range system and one like the Doug one is huge ( I'm not saying that the Dou system was not a good one, I'm sure it is. ) not only in the low bass reproduction but all over the frequency range including sounstage. That last one or one and a half music octave makes a huge difference and those differences are for the better. When you hear it you can't live with out it and ( like Andrew ) when you have it you can discern better on the music and this fact has a very simple reason: who could have better music perception: one person that the only music that he heard is " live music " or a person that the only music that he heard is through an audio system?, now: who could have better music perception ( all things the same ), one person that heard always music through a full range system than other person that heard always through a non full range system?
Doug knows that one of my old " feelings " ( good feelings ) about his system always was and still is the limited bass frequency range response that had his 803's, but today I know that he can't do almost nothing about because its place space limitations.
About the 47K it is difficult for sure to know where is the problem but at least in the Andrew CAT ( btw, in my Essential 3150 I never had that kind of problem ) the problem does not exist and that's why I " feel " that the problem is in the Doug unit and yes Dan we usually hear a brightness at 47K but I think that was not the problem from what Doug and Andrew posted. What is sure is that the Andrew O is incompatible with the Doug unit at 47K .
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
rzed, What argument? It's more like a tempest in a teacup. The three people who were actually here all heard the same thing. The people disagreeing were hundreds of miles away and they're both Tranny owners. Partisanship from a distance seems too obvious to require comment or rebuttal. If the phonostage which is currently owned by Doug is that good to discern the level of performance of these top cartridges to that slight differentiation, than I urge it to be exlusively produced and made available to that small little crazy group of people like us. It is available, by custom order, for anyone crazy enough to want a reference level, full-function preamp for 1/2 - 1/3 the cost of commercial units that it routinely outplays. (Raul also uses a very special custom preamp, for similar reasons.) Dan_Ed sold his Aesthetix gear one week after hearing our Alaap and ordered one for himself, which he's now enjoying mightily. The two requirements of an owner are that he love music and be someone we'd enjoy having around to dinner. Most of the people on this thread would qualify. Doug |
Hi Raul,
Thanks for your insights. We understand this "test" was fairly useless, especially given the low hours on Andrew's cartridge. Very true.
Andrew's speakers go lower than mine, but when I described bass differences I described what we DID hear, not what we didn't. One cartridge produced strong, tuneful and articulate bass down to the lower limit of the system. The other had solid but somewhat "one-note" bass, down to that same limit. Again, this may easily improve with break in or on another tonearm, but the differences we heard were between the two cartridges.
We performed our "VTA madness for each LP" with the Orpheus just as carefully as with our own cartridge. Andrew heard the differences and agreed that Paul had found the right spot.
My phono stage has no known problems at 47K. I've listened to six or eight cartridges through those inputs and the performance has always been exemplary, subject only to the fact that 47K is not optimal for most LOMC's, as you know. The Orpheus's upper mids and lower highs were peaky, just what you'd expect from a low hours, 2.5 ohm cartridge at 47K. This is not a flaw in the Orpheus or the phono stage, it's normal behavior. Nsgarch, a Tranny user, recommends much lower impedances and I agree with him. Other than finding the Orpheus's ideal impedance once it's fully broken in, this is a non-issue. Why Andrew's phono stage doesn't produce a rising top end at 47K I do not know, since I'm quite unfamiliar with it.
We have not dissed the Orpheus. If we hadn't had a UNIverse to compare, its thicker bass and slightly blended inner harmonics could have gone unnoticed. The Orpheus is a good cartridge that does nothing obviously wrong, as I said. It simply wasn't (at this stage in its life) able to match the clarity, low noise floor, microdynamics and "eery" realism of the ZYX. That may change next week or next month or never, so this comparison was just a snapshot in time - "useless" in the long run.
We also said nothing about the Orpheus vs. the V, the W or any other cartridge. I have no reason to doubt SirSpeedy's enthusiastic report of the new model's superiority over its predecessors, or your characterization of them based on your own experience. But you have not compared them with a UNIverse either...
|
Hi Raul,
I guess you really had something to say since your response got posted twice! :) Just kidding, I know you did some editing.
Doug did express much of the same reservations that you did concerning such a quick cartridge comparison. I think you did a very good job of giving the details of those concerns. In regards to the LF response of Doug's system I can tell you that his system system has plenty of chest vibrating low end response. Perhaps not what you would expect from a subwoofer, but still plenty deep and strong. I'm curious why you think there is something wrong with Doug's phono stage since the 47K loading sounded shrill in the HF. Isn't that what one would expect when loading an MC that much? I know from my own experineces that 47K usually makes things sound much like and old transistor radio. In fact, if 47K sounds good in Andrew's phonostage I have to wonder if that load is really being applied.
Ignoring the snipping that has occured, it does seem to me that it would be fun to re-visit the "O" after a few hundred hours of break-in. By then I hope to have my XV-1s broken in as well so perhaps there could be comparison of the 3 that may help some to grasp the differences in these cartridges. I know it would help me immensely! |
Doug, Larry,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate that. I tried to call it how I heard it. Since some folks claim that their cartridges sound great out of the box or pretty decent at 30 or so hours, I thought it would be interesting to compare. Anyway, certainly not an ideal situation. Oh well.
I tried to make the following comments in a post on Sunday but it looks like it didn't go through. that is:
Intrestingly, I think the O sounds pretty damn good in my system and doesn't seem to have the flaws we perceived when comparing it to the Uni in Doug's system. In other words, the O doesn't sound flat, compressed and opaque in my system where it did in Doug's. I can happily live with the sound that I get in mys system. It seems to do just about everything right. I mentioned this to Doug and Paul while I was at their place.
That said, the differences we heard in Doug's system were apparent and I can only imagine how amazing the Uni must sound in my system. Hopefully I'll have the chance to hear it in my system some day.
Andrew |
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 |
BRAVO Doug for posting your detailed and well written review. Your insight into what you and Paul hear in your system carries much weight with myself. Please don't let someone's insecurity with his own system or ears deter you from posting your fine tuned and to the point thoughts. BTW, what would shipping be on that defaced nickel?
Larry, excellent response, could not have said it any better!
Mark, if you want an "O", just get one and keep your snide remarks to yourself. We have lost WAY too many great posters such as TWL because of a few posters like you. I would however, enjoy reading what you hear when you get a new cart or do a shootout of your own.
Now after we all come back in from recess, I hope we are buddies again... |
I've exchanged emails with Doug but never met him. Based on the emails and the consistency of his posts, I believe there are no reasons to question his veracity and/or integrity. In some cases I do not agree with his points of view however there is no doubt they are honest and heartfelt.
That being said, the "dice were loaded before the shootout" assertion was both a cheap shot and disingenuous. In any head to head match up of components will there rarely exist a 50/50 split preference. In most, but not all, one component is generally preferred. Again and no offense to the Tranny owners, the UNIverse simply may be a better product. I import a cartridge line from England but I've yet to hear anything better than the UNIverse. I wish my product was as good. |
Dear Andrew/Doug: Interesting cartridges test but a little useless.
It is obvious that Andrew and Doug have a different music perception top to bottom frequency range and especially in the mid and low bass. I'm not sure who is nearest to the music but maybe could be because one of them hear more often live music or maybe because Andrew system goes really deep in the bass and he can perceive things that Doug can't in its system ( the Andrew brain is already equalized to his system and in a way its brain treat to synthesize about ).
Both systems can't be more different: a wood TT against all metal one, speakers/room, phonolinepreamp, amplifier and cables, add to all these that Andrew don't bring with him the LP's that he knows better.
The other subject is that the set up of the U was executed exactly to the Doug music sound priorities at a very high level of critic ( that VTA madness each LP !!! ). I can't be sure which one will be the results if the O " suffer " the same high level of set up.
Now, how many hours they take on the tests? and how they make those tests?. For any cartridges comparison we need a procedure to follow for that comparison could be useful.
There are, at least, two things that disturb me: first is that the O can't track the Trio LP and the second is that the sound at 47K was a very lesser one.
The former could be that the O suspension it is not settle down or that that O is out of specs ( we can't know it at this time because we don't have any info about how many hours needs the O. Andrew please ask to the manufacturer. Maybe the O needs 300 hours, who knows. Btw, my Colibri needs 300 hours and after that Dr. Van denHul makes the last adjustment. ), the 47K could be a problem with the Doug phonolinepreamp because in the Andrew one everything is right ( at least at 47K ).
I think that with all these variables ( and others ) we can't have a fair opinion about the O. Some people in the thread, especially Mark give us some opinions about the O that from my point of view were irresponsible taking in count who is Mark.
I had the opportunity to heard the V/W and none has the characteristics that Doug mentioned and I don't think that the O design/build put up for sale its new flag-ship model that is inferior in its quality sound reproduction than the lower models, I assume that they make a extended voicing about.
I think that before we make a false assumption ( like Mark ) about the O we have to wait a little more where we could have more O owners experiences, of course that always exist the possibility that the O designer/builder made a mistake with the O.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Well said, Larry. Well said.
I picked up on the undercurrent several days ago and it became somewhat obvious why Doug was hesitating to post. I've been struggling with how to respond but I'm glad I didn't because I could not have said it better than what Andrew and Larry have.
The day I feel that I'm not getting Doug and Paul's honest opinions will be the last day I ever ask them for their input. And that goes for anyone else in this crazy hobby.
Best to all,
Dan |
Wow what an argument!
I don't have the "U" to compare in my system either. Reason is simple -- it is the US distributor that had given "fund" to the producer to produce this particular cartridge. So it is in that sense.."exclusive". Without this "U" in my system posed me a lot of questions then, is kind of this cartridge better than those cartridges which I owned before? How much better, if it is, comparing to those like Dynavector XV-1S, Koetsu Coral, RSP, Lyra Titani,Ikeda, Miyabi, Maicro Magic, Presence Audio Reference, Aventurion6,Van den Hul Colibri etc...?
Within this small little casing, the improvement on the material used, placement, design etc. and coming to this age, how much more improvement can we have? Are we talking about vest differences?
From the way "O" was described, it could not even stand up to the level of its own sibling..the TemperV, I sigh....
If the phonostage which is currently owned by Doug is that good to discern the level of performance of these top cartridges to that slight differentiation, than I urge it to be exlusively produced and made available to that small little crazy group of people like us.
I read the post from SirSpeedy sharing his enjoyment and enthusiasm like those that I could usually derive from normal friends of mine without any business agenda. No apology please from SirSpeedy. |
Well, it is not a “Fray”.
.
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
.
Doug was foolish enough to listen to me when we talked before he posted his notes here when I said, “you should go ahead and write what you heard and observed. It is the right thing to do. People will benefit from your (and Paul’s) honest and astute observations. “ Don’t worry about those who will think you are prejudiced towards the UNIverse”.
.
Reality is: Doug was not going to write his observations because he assumed that he would get flamed for judging the “O” unfairly because of the perception that he is blinded by his passion for the UNIverse. Doug does prefer the Universe to any other cartridge he has heard to date (except the Lyra Olympus), can hear, has an extremely resolving system, is honest, can defend himself without any of my help, is always trying to help others along the way towards Audio Nirvana, and does not deserve to have the insinuations that he is anything but honest and non biased.
.
We all know that this was not a perfect comparison of the “O” and the Universe and Doug stated as much. The “O” was not nearly broken in and there was limited time to do set ups and comparisons. I am sure that Doug would want the UNIverse to be better than the “O” since he has invested in the UNIverse and just as likely, for the same reasons Andrew would have loved for the “O” to outshine the Universe. But, here you have Doug and Andrew trying to share their experiences for the benefit of all and we have the cynics out in force casting stones.
.
Given the circumstances, we all received some honest and insightful observations from Doug and Andrew that have some value. Could there be more clarity if repeated with a fully broken in “O” again with some tinkering with set ups and loading ? Sure, and it may happen someday if Andrew is has another business trip sometime in the future and has the time and inclination.
.
Sirspeedy, I think you owe Doug an apology for:
“It's great to love one's stuff, but, sorry, the dice seemed loaded before the shootout! “ and “If only you could not have been so wooden, and assumed "more could probably be had".
. Doug put a lot of effort into hosting and then sharing his honest opinions and deserves better than your snide comments. Once againÂ…..think before you write/post. You might, as I have suggested twice before to you to compose off line, read it again and ask yourself; Do I really want to post this ?
.
There was a lot of time invested in doing the comparisons and writing up their observations. How willing do you think Doug, Andrew or others will be in the future to share this type of experience with all of us if they can always count on getting flamed for posting what they observed? If you have not compared both an “O” and a UNIverse in your system and don’t have the opportunity to do so, how about being grateful to a couple of guys who went out of their way to share with us.
.
If Andrew and Doug do another comparison sometime, I hope they will still think it is worth sharing their experience with us again.
.
Thanks, Doug / Thanks, Andrew
.
Rgds,
Larry
. |
Dear Andrew/Doug: Interesting cartridges test but a little useless.
It is obvious that Andrew and Doug have a different music perception top to bottom frequency range and especially in the mid and low bass. I'm not sure who is nearest to the music but maybe could be because one of them hear more often live music or maybe because Andrew system goes really deep in the bass and he can perceive things that Doug can't in its system ( the Andrew brain is already equalized to his system and in a way its brain treat to synthesize about ).
Both systems can't be more different: a wood TT against all metal one, speakers/room, phonolinepreamp, amplifier and cables, add to all these that Andrew don't bring with him the LP's that he knows better.
The other subject is that the set up of the U was executed exactly to the Doug music sound priorities ( and that Doug's brain is perfectly equalized with the U characteristics ) at a very high level of critic ( that VTA madness in each LP !!! ). I can't be sure which one will be the results if the O " suffer " the same high level on the set up.
Other subject is that the U is very happy with the Triplanar and we don't know if this tonearm is the best O match.
Now, how many hours they take on the tests? and how they make those tests?. For any cartridges comparison we need a procedure to follow for that comparison could be useful.
There are, at least, two things that disturb me: first is that the O can't track the Trio LP and the second is that the sound at 47K was a very lesser one.
The former could be that the O suspension it is not settle down or that that O is out of specs ( we can't know it at this time because we don't have any info about how many hours needs the O. Andrew please ask to the manufacturer. Maybe the O needs 300 hours, who knows. Btw, my Colibri needs 300 hours and after that Dr. Van denHul makes the last adjustment. ), the 47K could be a problem with the Doug phonolinepreamp because in the Andrew one everything is right ( at least at 447K ).
I think that with all these variables ( and others ) we can't have a fair opinion about the O. Some people in the thread, especially Mark give us some opinions about the O that from my point of view were irresponsible taking in count who is Mark.
I had the opportunity to heard the V/W and none has the characteristics that Doug mentioned and I don't think that the O design/build put up for sale its new flag-ship model that is inferior in its quality sound reproduction than the lower models, I assume that they make a extended voicing about.
I think that before we make a false assumption ( like Mark ) about the O we have to wait a little more time where we could have more O owners experiences, of course that always exist the possibility that the O designer/builder made a mistake with the O.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Andrew,
Thank you for being an upstanding guy. I never doubted what we all heard, though I'm beginning to wonder why we bothered sharing it. You get my vote for honest audiophile of the year.
Like you, I hope the O will open up a lot more. IMO this is likely precisely because it couldn't yet track that warp on 'Trio'. A 9g/13cu cartridge on a TriPlanar should track that, so odds are it will improve a lot. Our Shelter 901 and Airy 3 each needed 200+ hours, so keep spinning.
A repeat visit (in either direction) after a few more months would be good fun.
A wee nip o' the Lagavulin to you,
Doug
|
All,
Just got back from a business trip an caught up on these posts. I beleive Doug's comments echo my own to a large degree. As I said in my post, the Uni defintely sounded better than the O. I think Doug captured the differences well. The most remarkable difference to me was the Uni was very open, clear and dynamic. The O sounded somewhat opaque and flat. As far as the bass goes, I heard a difference but honestly don't have the experience with these tracks that Doug and Paul have; nor did we have time to really go back and forth.
Hopefully the O improves radically with break-in!
Andrew |
Hey,in defense of Doug(really),I believe he and the others heard what was stated.My only bone of contention was there was no assumption of possibly getting better performance with a different set of parameters(forget breakin,eighty hrs is fine).It seemed the "wholey incomplete" results stemmed from the desire to "want" a given result.Do you actually believe anyone would not lend creedence to the possibility of varying set-up(s),vying for ownership of a five thousand dollar product.
When I was so over the top last week,about the "O",I specifically stated there had to be equal to,or better designs.Too much competition.
Are we alone in the universe,just because we have no proof,of other life?Are we the smartest life force,in existence?I assume not!
I actually "deeply" respect Doug/Paul,and actually like these enthusiastic guys,alot!If only you could not have been so wooden,and assumed "more could probably be had"(here,assuming is not a real stretch),with this sort of financial investment.
It's great to love one's stuff,but,sorry,the dice seemed loaded before the shootout!And the results seemed,almost,celebrated.Do you have any real criticism of any components you own,is something all of us should ask ourselves!Alot of guys have really good systems.
Best,and I mean only to instigate good debate.
Mark
|
Before entering THIS fray, I'll get out my Trio and Sonic Fireworks Albums and listen to them with my lowly Temper W for the qualities Doug describes. In the meantime, and apropos of Doug's stratospheric hearing specs, I ran across this site from the University of New South Wales. All you need is a decent pair of headphones and sound card to test your own amazing hearing ;--):
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/hearing.html
Anyway, I'll listen to both albums as I stare hypnotically at a printout of Doug's comments, and compare my findings with his. Gosh, what if my W turns out to be better than Andrew's O!
This all puts me in mind of the composer Max Reger's reaction to a negative reviewÂÂ: "I am sitting in the smallest room in my house. I have your review in front of me. Soon it will be behind me." |
So sorry(for the traffic involved),but I did go back to my friend,this morning.We listened and played around a bit,with his "O".We both feel that we must have had too much wine,last week!How could we have liked it,SO much?Of course it did not change it's characteristics,one bit,but "now" we don't like it anymore!My friend is going to sell it,and get something new).I think he is going to try to become more influenced by some of these posts,and take things from there.It did not mistrack,played virtually everything thrown at it,to a "fairthywell",had fabulous timbres,harmonics,detail,dynamics(top to bottom),incredible soundstage with depth as good as I have heard.To play it safe,we had a number of other hobbyists,from our little group,give it the "go round" by bringing some of their "torture track" lp's over.I feel sorry for them,as they loved this new Tranny,and did cartwheels.Their own set-ups range from Pipe Dream speakers,BIG Infinities,CJ Art II,the big Maggies,and some other standard and custom equipment,but there must have been something in our brew,as everyone was "flabbergasted" by the performance of the "O".
I am really perplexed,as a potential "serious" buyer,as these are the guys who taught me about the hobby,music,record collecting,equipment,mods,tweaks etc.More than a few actually have contributed "alot" to music journalism,yet I cannot allow myself to believe their "over the top" enthusiasm,for this new Transfiguration,knowing Doug has given it ALL that it can attain.Other than "it was not fully broken in".But no other parameters can be addressed because there was no control over them.So, just, maybe, those parameters could not level the playing field if one was say,going to commit to long term ownership.I'm confused.My pals must,surely,be in the dark,for liking the "O" so much.But none of them are moving to a new cartridge,like me.They are happy with their assortment of Koetsus,Olympos's,Coral Stones,Titan's,"V",s,Benz etc.What could they know,for virtually going "ape-shit" over the "O" in one guys set-up?Maybe the set-up was flawed!
Best!
Mark |
Tim asked: 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? The Alaap does not have selectable gain, other than choosing between the MM or MC inputs. The MM inputs have a very robust tube gain stage with three tubes per channel. The MC inputs add an FET gain stage before going into the MM stage. Each stage has an independent external power supply. I don't remember the gain figures, perhaps Nick will let us know. I do know that the MM stage provides so much clean gain that one can play a .2mV Koetsu Onyx Platinum or a .24mV ZYX (.36mV if Nsgarch is correct) with low tube rush and fully ample dynamics. I've heard both of those cartridges through the MM inputs and they rocked the house with no distortion or dynamic headroom issues. Dan_Ed could probably confirm this with his XV-1S. I use the FET inputs to get optimal impedance loading, and it does reduce tube rush to inaudible levels. On a related note, we're going to have Nick reduce our line stage gain to 9db. The present 15db is too much. I can't turn the gain control knob above 9:30-10:00 without breaking windows. It would be nice to have a less sensitive gain control and to run the line stage tubes nearer their mid-point. 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? Exactly. That is precisely what we heard. If mechanical vibration is not damped or drained, it will necessarily vibrate the coils at frequencies and phases unrelated to the new signal coming from the groove. Vibrating coils generate signals... We heard exactly this with the UNIverse a couple of weeks ago, during an abortive tweak-fest. I added a 4g weight atop the headshell, to get effective mass up to what Thom Mackris has found to be optimal. This certainly added weight and bass heft, but it also reflected energy back into the cartridge. Paul instantly heard phase shifted noise, made a face and left the room. It took me a couple of sides, but eventually I had to admit that the induced noise was a bigger penalty than any benefit. (Anyone want a nickel with two mounting holes drilled through it?) At one of Cello's gatherings, Frank Schroeder was very surprised when a UNIverse/TriPlanar gave his Reference/Olympos a serious challenge. Since he knows from experience that the Reference is a quieter, better damped arm (and it is) he commented that the UNIverse must have exceptional internal damping. He expected to hear a muddied noise floor and/or resonance peaks at frequencies the TriPlanar doesn't control well. These are audible with Shelters and others on a TriPlanar, but not with a UNIverse, which prompted Frank's astute observation. It is an inherently quiet cartridge that doesn't rely on damping by the arm. It's had a similarly black background on every arm I've heard it on. Sorry for the lengthy explanation and examples, but we made some strong statements about a $5K cartridge and people may reasonably question my constant championing of the ZYX. I felt you deserved as much verification as I could provide. Doug P.S. to Mark, I obviously can not and would not question your "O" vs. "V" findings. I have no doubt you and your group heard exactly what you reported. Don't go away! As you said, we're all here to learn together. Without this forum our system would be nowhere. We'd probably still be playing a CD once a month and wondering why music was so unsatisfying. (We'd also have much larger bank balances!) |
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 |
Doug,sorry but I cannot interpret what you claim in the O's performance,as "sins of ommission"!Sounds like a bit of a "RIP",at 5500 clams,if you are accurate(95% of it,as stated)."Completely lost" the duality of Dolly and Linda.
Jumping out of the groove,which was handled with aplomb,by the Uni?
"Certain accompanying instruments being smoothed over,and a flawed bass",don't sound too desireable at 5500 clams.
Lets keep going.....Bass that on some stuff,interferes with the "rest of the spectrum".Ommission?What's to omit,but my hard earned cash?I may own a printing/graphic center,but I do NOT print my own money!
More?...."Dynamically flat presenation",on some material,where you heard much better!
Noise floor is not up to "what ZYX users are used to".In need of a Schroeder(possibly),to "tame excess energies".
If you are right about getting "MORE THAN 95% OF WHAT THAT CARTRIDGE WAS CAPABLE OF",it should be pulled from the market!Fast!
I cannot see,from your own comments why this design should get any credible "good press",in the future.Also,I need to get out more,and hear some new systems(or maybe a hearing check-up).
Thanks for saving me some money!Can't wait to see what the mainstream press,or other owners have to say!
Best!
Mark |
Audiofel,firstly no need to question how I interpreted your post.No offense was taken,either.I got the point!Nsgarsh,thanks,for the compliment.Truthfully though,Audiofel,you should re-read my interpretation of how I pereived the Orpheus,in my friend's set-up.I specifically stated to take any of my comments with a grain of salt,AND they were ONLY specific to what I heard in my friend's set-up.I think if you go back to many of my statements,of late,I am making an attempt to criticise my own componentry,for what they are,too.I have consciously done this,because I think some place ego,and "favorite designer/friend's" ahead of general "shoptalk".I am not accusing anyone here of any of this,though,no doubt some will interpret it as so.BTW,when did I ever question the reputation of the Universe design,as you allude to?The only time I get "ancie" is if I am very familiar with something,and a contrary opinion is stated(fine by me,as I don't feel the need to "have" to be right,but do want to entertain some insight).My reply is to instigate a debate!Nothing has to be definitive.We are all,going to buy what we like anyway! BUT I certainly give creedence to other opinions.That is how I learn,myself,and I will always have alot to gain from other opinions.No need for fights to break out,but confrontation,in a quality heated debate is a good thing.I hope.Too bad we can't have one without "riling up the troops"!
I stand behind my interpretation of the "O",in my friend's system(compared to the "V",in a "quite resolving set-up" too btw),but am happy to hear that there are those who feel there is a clearly better design available in the form of the "UNI",and it makes so many NICE folks happy!Isn't that what matters most?Maybe my own,and my friend's syatems are not up to Doug's.It is all fun,and one reason I like this forum.I NEVER actually mean to be condescending,or all knowing like some,but admit to being "too much",often.The hobby is SO MUCH FUN!!!....That's it!!!!!!
My only disappointment was that,since I am actually interested in both designs,having heard,and liked both,I cannot have some important questions entertained,based on the ground rules set,for fear of giving the wrong signal.Makes me want to retire,from 'gon again.
Best!
Mark
|
Mark,
We're still striving but we are indeed blessed, not only with some good mainstream components (which anyone might choose) but mostly by a friend who makes rare and very special preamps and amps for remarkably affordable prices. We have not heard anything better them, at any price, except for Dan_Ed's four-chassis version of the same preamp. (Lucky guy!) Meeting Nick was a huge bit of good luck.
Back to the Orpheus. It is a good cartridge, it will get better with time and those with certain listening preferences could prefer it to an Airy 3 or even a UNIverse. The trick is conciously understanding our sonic preferences before choosing a component.
The Orpheus does nothing obviously wrong, it never steps out of line and it is always satisfying and musical, which is more than I'd say about most other cartridges. (You know how forgiving I am!) The shortcomings we heard were sins of omission, the kind of things you never notice until you hear something better. Rushton, Zaikesman and others told me the same thing about my old c-j PV11 preamp, but I never quite believed them until Nick visited us with an Alaap in tow. Then we understood.
Our guess is that "typical" classical/jazz/acoustic listeners would prefer the ghostly quiet noise floor of a ZYX. This unflappable, jet black background lets colors, textures and sudden dynamic contrasts leap out with an "eery" reality, as Andrew noted. OTOH, the Tranny's somewhat higher noise floor gives it an insistent sort of energy that some rock/amplified music listeners would prefer. Those aren't my preferences so it's harder for me to explain them, but I became an old fart when I discovered classical at age 16 and I'm not getting any younger!
Best,
Doug |
Thanks Doug. Great notes.
Speedy, I was in no way questioning your intelligence. A close read of my post bears this out.
Nsgarch, you're a Tranny owner correct? You might want to check out Doug's notes. I hope you enjoy them. |
I have finally been able to fully digest your post Doug.My very last response to Audiofeil was, in essence, of a defensive nature.Sorry!
I can only imagine how good a sound system you,and Paul,have put together.Based on the well articulated description of it,by Andrew,it has to be damn good,and revealing enough to be appropriate in this "coil shootout"!
Based on your analysis,and perspective by Paul and Andrew, this new Transfiguration design comes off as almost flawed,to me.Especially at the asking price which is in line with the clearly far superior "UNI".The "UNI" must really be special!Especially once voiced in a set-up that is designed to harbor it,on a permanent basis.I have NO doubt.My own "taste",last Thanksgiving was obviously an appetizer.I am most interested if this new Transfig will get good universal press,as based on what you had to say,it should not.We'll see.
I hope my friend does not read Audiogon,as we thought we were happy,last week.
As I am at a point of considering a new cartridge,this leaves me in a conundrum of sorts.Maybe Cello was right.Do I really have to go for a new arm AND cartridge?Let's see how things shake out!
Though you have pointed to some decent performance aspects of the "O"'s design,I "read" your thoughts as underwhelming,towards it!I would not want to own a design that performed to the level you heard with the "O",regardless of the design it was put against.I can only imagine how poor the Temper-V would have fared,knowing how it is a rung below the "O".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".
Be happy,as you have what most of us only strive for.
Best!
Mark |
.
Doug,
.
Nice post. Thanks for taking the time and effort to do into all of the detail and explanations.
.
Rgds,
Larry
. |
I'd like to share my thoughts and Paul's.
First, our thanks for Andrew's kind words about our system. We heard the things he described, with one exception, plus some things he did not mention. He is not an experienced classical music listener, so comparing strange music in a strange system represented a double challenge.
I'll describe what we heard on each LP, to give context and to help organize my thoughts.
'Past Times - Piano Rags'
Nonesuch H-71299 (sealed promo copy)
Surprisingly good rendition of solo piano and soundspace for a non-audiophile label
The O lacked the last edge of speed and did not differentiate the many sounds of a piano so clearly (action of mechanism, hammer hitting string, string vibration, echo off the case, vibration of the case). It slightly muddied all of these.
The O also lacked true HF extension, but this often improves with break-in and it would be unfair to consider this a flaw at the 80 hour point. The shrillness Andrew described at 47K ohms, which was reduced at 1500 and gone at 200, all occured at ~14KHz and below. Frequencies above that were attenuated, though they will probably open up with time. Nsgarch is very probably correct that continually lower input impedances will prove best as the cartridge runs in. I have experienced this with several new cartridges.
'Trio' - Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt, Emmy Lou Harris
Warner Bros. Records W1-25491 (sealed copy)
The difficult thing about this record is differentiating between the very close vocal harmonies. In addition, this copy was in cellophane too long and developed a nasty warp.
The Orpheus was virtually unable to resolve Dolly and Linda when they sung tight harmonies. Emmy Lou is easy to resolve due to her unique vocal timbre, but the other two sounded almost like one rather full-bodied singer.
The Orpheus was unable to play track 1, at all. It literally jumped out of the groove. We double checked everything but setup was normal and nothing was brushing the record. The suspension simply couldn't handle that warp (the UNIverse tracks it cleanly and plays without distortion). We had to play middle tracks to hear the Orpheus on this record.
Certain accompanying instruments had a slightly smoothed over quality, but this was easier to hear on other records so I'll describe it there.
'Sonic Fireworks, Vol. 1'
Crystal Clear Records CCS-7010
Many of you are familiar with this direct-to-disk showoff disc. Enormously powerful bass and kettle drums, intense brass and a big cathedral pipe organ on some tracks will challenge the dynamic strength and subtlety of any component in the system.
The O's macrodynamics were very good, but its bass response was flawed. (This is where we and Andrew heard differently.) The O's bass was neither deeper nor stronger in amplitude than the U's. It was slightly boomy, which made it seem relatively more prominent compared to other frequencies. This proved problematical for two reasons.
First, it lacked texture. Compared to the U's deep and growly bass, the O's bass was bold but smeared.
Second, it interfered with the rest of the spectrum. I'll give two specific examples:
a) This record contains many large cymbal hits with long decays. When a big bass or kettle drum hit in the middle of a cymbal decay, the decay was temporarily overwhelmed and became inaudible, then reappeared after the drum energy died down a bit. Those familiar with the U know that it never does this. All frequencies are reproduced cleanly and independently, no matter how crazy, complex or dynamic the rest of the music gets. The O could not match this level of transparency.
b) This record contains both a huge bass drum and a set of very large kettle drums. The O had a hard time distinguishing which was which. The U not only does that, it resolves the size and shape of each.
'Fragile', Yes
Atlantic Records SD 19132 (very minty copy)
Andrew's a rock listener and this represents the best (and almost the only) LP from my rock "collection". ;-)
He asked for the beginning of the last cut on side 2, 'Heart of the Sunrise', and I'll defer to him for why that cut was chosen. Paul and I both heard the same thing however, a dynamically flatter or restrained presentation. The O did not attain the dynamic range between loudest and softest that we're used to.
I think that about covers what we heard. The Orpheus is, as Andrew said, a neutral, uncolored and resolving cartridge. Its bass is solid but flawed and it does not control energies well enough to attain the very low noise floor and wide dynamic range that ZYX listeners are used to. This is what prompted Paul to speculate that a Schroeder might be a good match, since Frank's arms tame excess energies better than any we know.
I'll be happy to answer any questions, but speculation about whether VTF, VTA, azimuth, impedance or other setup parameters might have improved things will not be answered, since that is pointless speculation. We did our honest best in the time we had, with the owner standing right there and confirming every adjustment. No audiophile I've met has ears to match Paul's for VTA and VTF. Andrew and I both confirmed the azimuth setting by ear and we all heard the impedance changes easily. My belief is that we got at least 95% of what this particular Orpheus is capable of given its fairly low hours.
|
Audiofeil - while you were "thinking out loud," you might have listed the the contents of your system along with any other (cartridges) you've owned/heard, thus giving the rest of us an opportunity to assess your cred. As it stands, your comments beg Mark's intelligence, which most of us know to be quite high.
Just thinking out loud of course ;--)
. |
Speedy,
Tonearm incompatibilies, VTF/VTA, incomplete breakin, improper loading, (all issues from your previous posts regarding the UNIverse) aside, have you ever considered that it might simply be a superior product to the Transfiguration (any of them)?
Just thinking out loud of course. |
