Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Listened on my Stax/Lambda Pro Sig/T1 tube driver.

Well, I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that the Palladian sounds $9,890 better than the JVC, but it does sound better...a lot better. I really do wish I could say that the JVC sounds as good as the Palladian does to my ears; but, while it does sound decent, I just don’t think it is in the same league.

First, as I have opined previously, “there is no ’inherent’ superiority of one form of cartridge over another in my experience”. I agree with halcro’s comment completely. IN GENERAL, each technology seems to offer certain desirable characteristics. Personally, I don’t think that this JVC is a particularly good example of the general merits of MM’s. I am much less impressed with this one than the previous Victors heard. As always, the tuning and other characteristics of the rest of the audio system plays a major role in how well a given cartridge fits in.

To my ears the most obvious difference, and one immediately apparent, is that the Palladian controls the highs much much better. I could point out that the JVC sounds thin and splashy in the highs with a generally terrible (sorry) cymbal sound, but the best example is to listen to how it handles sibilant “s” sounds. Listen to the lyric “something” @ 1:44; or, “peace” (?) @ 1:54. The “s” sounds are distorted and splashy. With the Palladian (@1:45&1:55) the “s” is smooth, controlled and well integrated.

With the JVC, besides a cymbal sound (high-hat in particular) that gets distorted and pushed forward to the point of distraction the result of this characteristic is that the sound of other instruments get tilted in the direction of that zone of distortion. The guitars sound thinner with a little too much “twang” and less sense of the body of the instrument. Vocals sound less natural than with the Palladian which offers a generally smoother and meatier sound. At times I wished that the Palladian had a little less “meat” and a little more of the JVC’s faux clarity (distortion) in the highs, but I much preferred the overall balance of the Palladian. The JVC sounds a little fatiguing by comparison. Dynamic performance seemed comparable for the most part, although the distraction of the JVC’s splashy cymbal sound obscures some of the rhythmic interplay between the drums, bass and guitar for some reduction of rhythmic groove.  

Thanks, halcro.

Edit:

I just went back and reviewed my earlier comments (and halcro’s) re the other Victors heard previously. I loved the X1, I did not like the 4MD-1X as much, and I liked this 4MD-20X even less. Halcro feels that the 4MD-1X is “somewhat better” than the 4MD-20X. It all seems to make sense and is consistent.

Perfect 'score' once again Frogman....👍
I agree 100% with all that you say (and hear)......
Of course.....there are some who would shrug their shoulders UNLESS the lowly 4MD-20X actually BETTERED the $10,000 Palladian...🤯
Life is not quite like that........
I merely wanted to reassure those who are on a tight budget vis-a-vis cartridges.....that cartridge designers NEVER set out to produce a 'poor' sounding cartridge.
They are merely constrained to do their best within strict budget constraints and this example may be the 'widest' difference you may hear between the 'Uber' cartridges and the 'Budget' ones.....

You will hear with coming MM comparisons against the Palladian......that competition can get a whole lot closer....🤗

I have been buying vintage cartridges (of all types) for over 10 years....
Not because I don’t like the prices of NEW ones....but because I have found the ’sound’ of cartridges made in ’The Golden Age of Analogue’ (70s to 90s) to be superior to ’modern’ ones.
Most Reviewers will have you believe that there have been advances (both in materials and technology) over the last 40 years but that is not true for cartridges IMO......nor for Tonearms or Turntables for that matter.
All the serious ’advanced’ styli profiles were developed decades ago and utilised consistently in MM designs as well as MCs.
All the cantilever materials such as diamond, sapphire, ruby, boron, carbon-fibre were also invented and used in the ’Golden Age’.
But the ’Golden Age’ had access to materials and technologies that are no longer available......
Beryllium cantilevers anyone.....?
Despite what some designers might tell you about the physical properties of boron that make it the ’best’ material for cantilevers......the vast majority of my favourite cartridges have ’beryllium’ cantilevers which are no longer available.
Hollow-tube aluminium....? tapered tube.....? carbon-fibre/beryllium composites.....?
None of these is commercially available today......

If so many advances have been made over the last 40 years......it stands to reason that cartridges made today would ’wipe the floor’ with vintage models......?

The following ’Shoot-Out’ is between the top-of-the-line Audio Technica AT150ANV (made in ’Limited Edition’ a few years ago) and the 35 year old top-of-the-line Audio Technica AT180ML/OCC.
The AT150ANV famously beat out 8 other cartridges (including the $9000 Ortofon Anna LOMC) in a ’blind’ listening test conducted by Michael Fremer.

VINTAGE AUDIO TECHNICA AT-180ML/OCC MM Cartridge
Mounted in DV-507/II ToneArm on solid Bronze ArmPod surrounding Vintage Victor TT-101 DD Turntable

MODERN AUDIO TECHNICA AT-150ANV MM Cartridge

I'm going to be 100% honest here, Ortofon 2M Black is a much superior cartridge to either of the ATs. The midrange illumination and technicolor on the 2M Black is absolutely magic. 

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.....