Hear my Cartridges....đŸŽ¶


Many Forums have a 'Show your Turntables' Thread or 'Show your Cartridges' Thread but that's just 'eye-candy'.... These days, it's possible to see and HEAR your turntables/arms and cartridges via YouTube videos.
Peter Breuninger does it on his AV Showrooms Site and Michael Fremer does it with high-res digital files made from his analogue front ends.
Now Fremer claims that the 'sound' on his high-res digital files captures the complex, ephemeral nuances and differences that he hears directly from the analogue equipment in his room.
That may well be....when he plays it through the rest of his high-end setup 😎
But when I play his files through my humble iMac speakers or even worse.....my iPad speakers.....they sound no more convincing than the YouTube videos produced by Breuninger.
Of course YouTube videos struggle to capture 'soundstage' (side to side and front to back) and obviously can't reproduce the effects of the lowest octaves out of subwoofers.....but.....they can sometimes give a reasonably accurate IMPRESSION of the overall sound of a system.

With that in mind.....see if any of you can distinguish the differences between some of my vintage (and modern) cartridges.
VICTOR X1
This cartridge is the pinnacle of the Victor MM designs and has a Shibata stylus on a beryllium cantilever. Almost impossible to find these days with its original Victor stylus assembly but if you are lucky enough to do so.....be prepared to pay over US$1000.....đŸ€Ș
VICTOR 4MD-X1
This cartridge is down the ladder from the X1 but still has a Shibata stylus (don't know if the cantilever is beryllium?)
This cartridge was designed for 4-Channel reproduction and so has a wide frequency response 10Hz-60KHz.
Easier to find than the X1 but a lot cheaper (I got this one for US$130).
AUDIO TECHNICA AT ML180 OCC
Top of the line MM cartridge from Audio Technica with Microline Stylus on Gold-Plated Boron Tube cantilever.
Expensive if you can find one....think US$1000.

I will be interested if people can hear any differences in these three vintage MM cartridges....
Then I might post some vintage MMs against vintage and MODERN LOMC cartridges.....đŸ€—
128x128halcro
Quite believable Invictus.....
I’m not the greatest fan of the AT sound (except in their US Signet guise)....agreeing that their midrange is typically lacking in your well-described “illumination and technicolor” 👍

This particular comparison is strictly for identical ‘model’ cartridges by the same manufacturer....from different eras.....
I think they’re pretty similar in frequency response....but what you can’t discern in the YouTube ‘sound’ is the slightly greater ‘magic’ in the 180ML.....
You DID notice how the 2M Black was handily outvoted by the 150ANV in Fremer’s ‘blind’ listening test......?🧐
Listened on my Stax Lambda Pro Sig/T1 tube driver setup with IPad as the source. As always, acknowledging the limitations in listening this way.

Two terrific cartridges and nice recording. Possibly due to the overindulgence over the last couple of (Holy)days đŸ€Ș, but I actually enjoyed the recorded perfomance as I find that, while I like his songwriting very much, I have to be in the right mood to enjoy Leonard Cohen’s “singing”.

So interesting how we each react to certain qualities in recorded sound! For me, the magic is with the 150 and, interestingly, I hear a more realistic sense of “illumination” with the 150; although I am not sure that I would use term “technicolor” as a positive trait. The tonal balance of the 180 reminds me very much of my 170OCC: a little covered sounding with a little bit of thickness through the lower mids for a generally weightier and slightly dark balance. Both the 150 and 180 sound excellent overall; but, for me, definitely with important differences.

I prefer the general tonal balance of the 150 and the thickness of the 180 through the lower mids and upper bass is gone. With the 180 vocals (especially male vocals) sound too chesty and thick to me and the overall sound can border on the ponderous at times due to the somewhat prominent upper bass/lower mids.

To me, the 150 offers a better sense of clarity; the lightbulbs in the room were changed to 100W bulbs from the 60W bulbs used with the 180 😎. With the 150 one can actually sense the size of the space that the musicians are in; or, at the very least and more importantly, sense that they are in the same space. The 180 seems to constrict this space a little. When the saxophone solos the ambient envelope around him seems to expand and is larger compared to the 180, letting one know that he is on the same stage as the other musicians. I don’t hear as much of this effect with the 180. In live recordings in particular, when the sense of the space (the acoustic connecting tissue) that the musicians are in can be heard there is more clarity in the musical interaction of the musicians. To my ears even the sound of the audience has more clarity and I can better hear individual voices.

The 150’s sound is a generally leaner sound (some might even say “brighter”), but I think it is generally more realistic with a linearity that reminds me a little (!!!) of the Decca. The guitar solo has a little more incisiveness and there is a little more snap to the drummer’s brushes hitting the snare drum’s head for a generally better sense of the music’s forward momentum. I think that this is due in part to the absence of the lower mids “shadow” that accompanies midrange sounds when there is a little bit of excessive energy in the lower mid/upper bass range. When it is there it creates a subtle sense of slowing things down a little bit.

Both great sounding cartridges.

Thanks, halcro; and HAPPY NEW YEAR!




150 is clearer with more insight and I prefer it. There is something sweet and SPU Gold about the 180 though.