Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Fantastic! Thanks.

After two listens while driving and on iPhone with inexpensive Panasonic earbuds, but what the hell....

Victor X1:

The most “impressive”. The most dynamically alive. Probably heard as the most dimensional on a good system. However, a little “Technicolor” and with a bit of nasality in the upper midrange. Reminded me of the sound of some horn speakers. Tonal center of gravity toward the lower mid/ upper bass.  HF ceiling a little low, but it’s probably my earbuds.

Victor 4MD X1:

Definitely of the same family but not as resolved. Above comments apply, but softer textured with tonal details glossed over compared to the X1.

Audio Technica:

More distant perspective as if sitting further back in the room. The most linear and without the nasality. Tonally the most realistic. Colorless the way some Maggies are...probably too colorless; music has color. I want to say it’s my favorite, but the X1 is probably the most fun to listen with.

My two cents.

Well, gee wiz, Henry; thanks.  Please continue to post examples.  Regards.

A couple of follow up thoughts, if I may.  While I was writing my previous comments, when listening to the X1 two things came to mind, good horn speakers and my Decca London.  I chose the comparison to horns beacause I was comparing the AT to Maggies and wanted to keep it consistent.  So, I agree wih noromance, similar to my impression of a classic Decca sound in some ways.  

The other thought was remembering a disagreement that I had on Raul’s MM thread.  I think the disagreement was with Raul, but herhaps Chakster (sorry, both).  I had made the comment that my ATML 170-OCC sounded, in comparison to some of my other favorite cartridges, a little subdued dynamically; not as alive sounding as others.  I realize that that ATML180 is a different cartridge, but I wonder about this possible family trait.

Further comparisons would be very interesting.  Thank you, Halcro.

We all have somewhat different ways of describing certain characteristics of sound and it might be beneficial and more meaningful if there were, if not consensus, at least a good understanding of how others use certain terms/descriptions.  Speaking for myself and acknowledging that tonal characteristics do affect our perception of a component’s ability to project the emotion component in music to a degree, I tend to separate that ability from tonal aspects.  What I mean is that I find that a cartridge can be very “warm” and still be emotionally uninvolving, or “lean” and still be very “alive” and involving dynamically.  For me emotional involvement has less to do with ability with tonal issues and more so with dynamics.  A cartridge can be more “linear” and more tonally natural than another, but not as natural dynamically.  If forced to choose I will always choose the component that is more dynamically natural since I find that it is far easier to tweak for tonal naturalness.  

Interesting thread, thanks.

Yeah, it’s you 😉.  Kidding, of course.  Judging?  Hardly.  I don’t think anyone here will take any perceived traits or differences as being anything even close to the last word.  What IS interesting is how some traits and consistencies can be perceived in spite of the limitations of the medium or the technology involved.  In my opinion it can potentially serve as a starting point for judging, through logic or extrapolation,  what might be heard on one’s setup.  For instance, I had never heard a Victor cartridge before, but had read a lot of opinion about them and was certainly very intrigued.  All the attempts at describing their sound that I had read did not give me any indication of what might be a “family sound”; and I do believe most cartridges have a family sound.  I now have a not insignificant idea of how it might sound on my setup and I am even more intrigued.  

I don’t think so; at all.  It’s very simple, really.  Unless it is a total coincidence that I heard certain sonic traits that are similar to what Halcro hears on his system, or Halcro is lying, then the exercise can have value as “a starting point”; especially in the absence of the availability of cartridges to actually try oneself.  Or, at the very least, it can serve as an interesting and potentially fun exercise that may surprise.

That’s for sure.  Happy day after Thanksgiving!  

This time on iPad instead of iPhone; same earbuds. Was hoping to listen on my Stax Lambdas/tube driver but discovered that my mini plug to RCA cable is at my son’s place; maybe next time. Listened to Palladian then Victor.

Palladian:

There is a bass line at the very beginning of the song that shows right off the bat that the Palladian has much better bass control. On the Victor the bass sounds bloated and overly resonant. On the Palladian the bass is realistically tighter and the pitches of the notes are much more easily heard. There also seems (earbuds) to be better extension at the frequency extremes, both low and high. Typical MC trait, individual images seem more separate and distinct from each other, but are a little smaller and with less image density. While very smooth (too?) overall and a little bleached sounding tonally, the sound is more extended top to bottom.

Victor:

As Halcro has said, they certainly seem to have the midrange magic. While there seems to be less extension at the frequency extremes what is there is more tonally realistic in certain ways. It wasn’t until I listened to the Victor that I realized that the acoustic guitar might be a twelve string guitar. More of the instrument’s distinctive character is heard with more metal in the sound of the instrument’s strings. Likewise for the strings (violins). With the Palladian they occupy a more delineated and separate place in the mix, but they are not as realistic sounding and, if anything, are a little too smooth sounding. The Victor lets one hear more of the sound of rosin grabbing the strings. With the Victor there is more metal in the sound of cymbals, while with the Palladian they sound a little wispy and papery by comparison.

As much as one can tell listening this way, I would bet that the overall presentation is that of a larger soundstage with the Palladian.

Amazing that given the price differential the Victor is not shamed by the Palladian.  The Victor reminds me of how I feel about my Stax F-81’s. Midrange to die for, but the limitations at the frequency extremes are almost a deal breaker.

My two cents.

Halcro, I listened again a few times. Acknowledging the limitations of listening to music this way, the Palladian still sounds more extended at both ends to me. I get more of a feeling of air up top even if the Victor has that very seductive clarity in the midrange (particularly vocals) that perhaps makes it sound “brighter”. The initial impression given by the Victor is of more bass, but the Palladian sounds to me like it goes lower and is tighter with better pitch definition. The Victor sounds tubby in the mid bass range and I wonder if that obscures some bass extension. But I still don’t get as much of that deep foundation that I hear hints of with the Palladian. Re “emotion”:

For me the emotional component is expressed primarily in the area of dynamics just as it is in live music. I find that some listeners associate tonal warmth with emotion and I do acknowledge that tonal naturalness plays an important role; but, ultimately, expressive nuance is mostly about (micro) dynamics. Example:

The tune “Willow” starts with the drummer (on brushes) playing a four sixteenth note lead-in into the bass player’s downbeat, who then plays the bass line mentioned previously. The drummer doesn’t just play four “notes” into the downbeat, he plays each one progressively louder and with a sense of urgency, of going somewhere...the downbeat. To my ears, with the Palladian that dynamic crescendo by the drummer is more obvious, impactful and with more musical intent. By comparison, with the Victor it all sounds a little polite and when the bass enters the tubbiness dulls the impact of the arrival of both drummer and bass on the downbeat and the following bass line also sounds a little bloated in comparison. Same thing happens when the guitar enters in the fourth measure. I find that the Victor’s tubbiness dulls the musical impact of the guitar’s entrance which signals the entrance of the vocal and should sound more dramatic as with the Palladian. Likewise, the sound of the slapped bass which follows is rounder and not as incisive. All things that determine musical impact (emotion). Of course this is all a matter of degree and by comparison, and in no way am I suggesting that I think the Victor is not good in those areas. Of course, then you have that beautiful Victor midrange naturalness; and that beautiful midrange definitely adds to the vocal’s expressive quality.  There really is something special about these cartridges and I hope to find one.

Thank you for the posts.

Btw, what is that single very high frequency ring, like a very high pitched triangle, that one hears at :07 and again at :22, but only on the Palladian version?

I just noticed that the two cartridges are each playing in different arms.  Obviously doesn’t change what I heard, but.......

Thank you for the very interesting thread, Henry.  Obviously, it’s not necessary, nor desirable, to always wear one’s “analytical” hat and instead just enjoy the musical ride.  Regards.  

Also after two quick listens. More to follow when I have more time (Aaargh! Some might be saying 😊). First impression: SPU Gold wins hands down. Why?

Gorgeous and very seductive sound. I agree with noromance, very sweet. At first the Silver gives the impression of more HF detail, but check this out:

On the Gold “track”, one hears, three times, at precisely 1:06, 1:08 and 1:11, from a keyboard (synthesizer), a right hand “tweet, tweet”. It’s very clearly heard on the Gold. Where are the “tweet, tweets” on the Silver or Signet? Completely gone. Fascinating. More to follow.

Very mystified that those “tweets” should be so obvious with the Gold (they are not that far back in the mix) and totally absent with the other cartridges.  It’s so glaring that I thought: is it possible that they are extraneous sounds in Halcro’s room and not in the recording?  Is Halcro messing with us? 😉 His “test”?  Unless it is the result of the unlikely coincidence that, as is the case, the pitches of those “tweets” both fit the harmony of the tune and are rhythmically accurate to the rhythm of the tune, I’ll stick with my original comment that the Gold reveals them and the others do not.  

Hysterical!  Talk about coincidences! Halcro has a very musical phone; in tune and with good rhythm 😊. Thanks for clarifying, it was seeming more and more implausible.  

Soon, I promise.  It’s been a little busy.  Probably tomorrow.

Sorry for the delay.  Some thoughts on the latest trio of cartridges.  This time I listened on my Stax Lambda Signatures with SRM-T1S tube amp fed by my iPhone.  

I should preface my comments by pointing out that while I like and use MM’s a lot, I am not in the camp that feels that they are inherently superior to MC’s; or viceversa.  I have used enough examples of both persuasions to feel that neither type, as a whole, is superior to the other in the ways that matter to me.  I know some will disagree, but I feel that there are certain sonic qualities that are shared by all of either type; and each type generally has certain specific strengths relative to the other.  In my experience MM’s excel in the area of timbre and tonality and MC’s excell with dynamics.  By dynamics I mean the feeling that the music is alive and the musical interaction among the musicians is realistic.  In a nutshell, that summarizes for me what I heard as the differences between the two Ortofons and the Signet.  I get seduced by the full, saturated and realistic tone of a good MM, but end up missing the immediacy and rhyhtmic definition of a good MC.  That has been my experience with the gear that I have owned over many years.  Other details:

SPU Gold:

Beautiful and rich midrange tone.  Sweet.  Seems to be weighted toward the lower mids.  Good feeling of immediacy and clarity.

SPU Silver:

Noticeably brighter sound with even more “clarity” in the mids and highs.  Sounds like it probably does a better job than the Gold of fillling and enveloping the room.  But there is a glare throughout that range that is annoying.  Seems to play slightly louder.  Again, great feeling of immediacy.  

Signet:

Darker, fuller and thicker tone as well as thicker sense of rhythm; not as lithe.  A little more clarity up top would probably be a good thing.  There is less of the sound of metal from the sleigh bells one hears throughout the beginning of the tune compared to the SPUs.  Great realism in the sounds of midrange instruments, but the music doesn’t flow with quite as much natural flow as with the SPU’s.  At times the music almost sounds like it is being performed a tiny bit slower.

There is a cowbell that enters @1:57 - 1:59 (depending on which clip) and plays on every beat.  It’s way in the background, but can be heard.  With the SPU’s one can actually hear or sense the feeling of forward drive that a player can coax out of the lowly cowbell.  On the Signet track the cowbell sounds like the player stuck a towel in it.  It sounds muffled with less definition on the beat and this diminishes the sense of forward drive in the rhythm of the tune.  

They each have strengths and I’m sure all three sound great on Halcro’s system.

It is interesting indeed, halcro. I agree with you in your strong preference for the sound of analog vs digital.  You seem to be particularly sensitive to high frequency aberrations and why you react so strongly to the sound of digital and perhaps why you prefer the sound of a good MM.  I hear consistently less high frequency detail and sense of limitless extension with most MM’s compared to MC’s which often go too far in the other direction such as with the SPU Silver.  I think noromance’s description of MM/MC’s was in reference to the three cartridges in question only and not a generalization.  I would never describe MC’s as a group to be more “lush” than MM’s; quite the opposite.  

To me ears it is MM’s that tend to have a fuller, more tonally saturated sound; what I would describe as “lush”.  I have also found that the sometimes exaggerated high frequency “clarity” of some MC’s creates a better balance in my all-tube amplification chain which tends, itself, to be on the lush side.  Even the best of my MM’s can be a little too lush and dark in my system without enough clarity and control in the highs.  The problem for me is that while I love the midrange “neutrality” of good MM’s they tend to go a little too far in that direction; almost as if they rob timbres of some natural colors by seeming to reduce the high frequency extension needed to balance out the very full and dense midrange character.  MC’s tend to put the emphasis on clarity/detail in the highs leaving the midrange to sound too lean.  A very difficult balance to get right.  

Assessing dynamics is complicated since timbre neutrality affects our perception of it.  All I can say is that to me that wonderful “coiled spring” aliveness and sense of the music always moving forward is generally better served by good MC’s.  Not that MM’s don’t do it well; matter of degeee.  I commented on the ET2 thread a while ago on a MM that I felt was the best MM that I have owned in regard to dynamics as described above.  The Acutex M420 STR.  Do you happen to have this cartridge?  Would love to hear it up against some of your faves.

Thanks! 

Just for the sake of perspective. The MM’s that I have owned and spent any significant time with and that I can remember (the ones with *, I still own):

Various Shure including the V’s
Empire 4000DIII Gold*
Azden 50VL*
Acutex 420STR*
Acutex 415*
Acutex 412
Sumiko “Andante”*
Pickering XSV3000
Stanton 880S
AT ML170OCC*

MI:
Every upper end pre-wood body Grado.

IM:
Various ADC including XLM and ZLM

Decca London*

MC:

VDH MC1*
VDH Frog 😊
VDH Grasshopper*
Spectral
Every Monster Cable including the AG2000*
Carnegie
Benz Ruby3
Koetsu Black
Koetsu Rosewood Sig.
Koetsu Pro IV
Denon 103D
Shelter 901
Sumiko

And others including Ortofon and Sumiko that I can’t recall:

Most have been mounted on the ET2 which I have used for well over twenty years. On this arm, the MM cartridges which, for me, have had the most convincing sense of dynamic aliveness have been the Acutex 420 and Azden. The best MC’s in this regard, not necessarily my overall favorites, have been the VDH’s and Spectral. The very best was, no surprise, the Decca; but a total PITA.

Re the Grassphoper: note that I stipulated that the MCs that I felt had the most convincing dynamic aliveness were not necessarily my favorites.

I think that you are exactly right when you surmise that with tube amplification one might “like” one cartridge over another compared to ss amplification. I love tubes. For me, for the mostly acoustic music (Classical and Jazz) that I listen to tubes generally do a better job of capturing tonal realism and dynamic nuance. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I feel the same way about tube amplification’s way with dynamic aliveness compared to ss as I do about MC’s compared to MM’s. Generally speaking, when I listen to good tube amplification I hear less deviation overall from the sound of live acoustic music than I do with ss.

I am curious about Schubert’s comment about dd tables. I don’t necessarily disagree, but wondered what about the topics discussed inspired the comment.

Btw, I think we may be shortchanging the importance of the arm used in these comparisons.  I realize that there is no other way, but worth remembering.  

Some thoughts re your excellent most recent post, halcro:

Great descriptions of the difficulties with piano reproduction. I completely agree. With one exception, the often stated idea that it is “the most difficult to reproduce”. I don’t like it because it is way too simplistic. It’s a bit like the often stated: “the oboe is the most difficult instrument to play”. All instruments are, overall, equally difficult to play in their own unique ways; just as all instruments place unique demands on the record/playback process. Speaking of the oboe; incredibly difficult to capture/playback a believable oboe sound with its very rich and complex harmonic content. Moreover, while all pianists do produce a somewhat individual tone on a piano, there is much more variability in the tones that individual oboists produce relative to what is possible on the piano which has a tone which is “built in” to a great (not total) extent. This makes the oboe particularly difficult to record and reproduce realistically. The cartridges:

There’s a lot going on with this comparison. Two things that are significant (to me) for my comments to have context: First, the cartridges are on two different arms. Second, I don’t feel that the piano is very well recorded on that recording. The piano is miked way too close up; especially the right hand. It makes the upper half of the keyboard have a clangy quality; nasal and metallic. Not nearly enough wood in the sound of the instrument. Makes it sound like an upright piano (not a good one), not a concert grand. I believe it’s the way it was recorded because this quality is heard with both cartridges to different degrees. Of course, the limitations of the recording equipment and YouTube plays into this, but the comparison is telling.

The MIT highlights the upper frequencies and the clangyness of the piano’s right hand is completely exposed. The two halves of the keyboard almost sound like two different instruments.

The Garrott does not have as much clarity in that range, so the clanginess is reduced to give the illusion of better balance and “neutrality” The problem then is that the left hand sounds too thick because the upper harmonics produced by those lower notes don’t have enough clarity due to the reduced harmonic content.  Overall, the Garrott’s piano sound is too thick without enough definition and “leading edge” (I hate cliches). The MIT’s clarity in the highs let’s it give the lower register definition, but higher frequency sounds are not well integrated.

Then there is once again the issue of dynamic aliveness. The MIT is superior in this regard to the Garrott. I realize that tonal balance impacts our perception of dynamics. Nonetheless, putting aside the issue of tone, what I hear is that the MIT lets me hear more of what the player is doing musically. The little pushes and accents, the subtle rhythmic give and take are more clearly heard with the MIT. Listen to the two tremolos that he plays beginning @ 0:57. With the MIT one hears that not only does he play a tremolo, but he makes a subtle crescendo (gets louder) during each one; especially during the second one, There are countless little dynamic details of that nature in the performance that I feel are better expressed by the MIT. It also reveals the bad. It better shows how the player’s Gospel music rhythmic feel is pretty square.

Bottom line for me is this. I think it points, more than anything, to the simple fact that even the best equipment has a long way to go to be truly “neutral”; to make a sound that sounds close to real. What I hear is that TONALLY both cartridges deviate from what I think the real thing sounds like to about the same degree; but in different ways. The Garrot is overly covered in the highs and thick in the midrange. The MIT sounds as if it highlights the upper ranges with a relentless clarity and ends sounding too lean. However, to my ears the MIT lets significantly more musical nuance through. If I had to choose, the MIT wins.

My two cents and thanks for the latest round.

Schubert, I completely understand what you are saying and I have been more than intrigued by the prospect of getting a good DD for many years. Good DD’s, like halcros, always sound good to me in that department.  I made a “commitment” to my tricked out VPI TNT VI several years ago in great part because it is such a good platform for what I think is one of the very best arms out there, my (also tricked out) ET2.  Especially after going to string drive instead of rubber belt, the table can sound pretty darn good and, overall, on the same level as SOME dd’s that I have heard.  Of course, no substitute for a proper arm and for living with a turntable so as to be able to make the adjustments that will get the sound closer to our own individual idea of what correct is.  The ET2 is amazing in that regard.  “Complicating” matters is the fact that I have had a beautiful Forsell Air Force One sitting in boxes, untouched  since buying it a few years ago very insexpensively from a friend.  More pumps!  Yay! ☹️  I couldn’t justify buying a good DD without first experiencing the Forsell.  There are only so many hours in the day.  So until there are.... 

Schubert, great question; and the answer to which highlights one of the main problems with the way orchestral music is often recorded. Most good composers of orchestral music are (and were) very mindful of the fact that the sound of an instrument, or instruments playing together, needs to travel a certain distance on its way to the listener’s ear in order to “develop” acoustically and achieve the desired timbre and texture. Sitting in the middle of an orchestra one hears a good amount of extraneous “noise” in one’s own and other players’ sounds which is not, nor intended to be, desirable. This noise can be excessive air in a wind player’s tone or exaggerated sound of the tongue “attack” of the note. Even in the absence of this noise, the timbre of most instruments is typically more brilliant and aggressive with more prominent, and uneven (unnatural) harmonic content when heard up close. Some players’ tones are much more beautiful heard from a certain distance.

Sitting mid hall, besides more fully developed individual tones, what one hears is the result of what (good) players sometimes refer to as “playing inside each other’s sound”. For instance, when the principal flute and principal oboe have a melody to play in unison, or when the tympani has repeated accented notes with the basses, what the composer usually intends, and what the players aim for, is not for the listener to hear two individual and distinct sounds. The compositional and performance goal is the color of a perfect blend between the two which is essentially a new color in the orchestral color palette. A performance that was recorded too close up does not capture this very important aspect of a composition and performance. Sitting in the middle of an orchestra players are (or, should be) very conscious of all this and play in a way that honors the composer’s goal in this respect. Some players’ tones are much more beautiful heard from a certain distance. Some of this is a bit of a mystery and goes to a musician’s strength of musical “intent”. Some players have the ability to “project” and sound very beautiful heard from a distance even if their sound may seem smaller than another player’s whose sound seems louder or more present when heard up close. Sitting in the middle of an orchestra a good player has to be mindful of all this in order to best serve the music.

Hearing music from inside an orchestra also makes one very aware and sensitive to very fine dynamic gradations in the music. Many of the things that I tried to describe above apply to the area of dynamics. Most listeners tend to focus on tonal issues and distortions in reproduced sound while distortions of dynamic nuance is just as prevalent and important; arguably, even more so since this is what mostly gives music its sense of aliveness. Perhaps a result of personal bias, but I find that distortion of dynamic nuance is the area in audio most in need of attention and improvement.

Re Falletta:

Fine conductor. I had the pleasure of playing under her with Philadelphia Orchestra on two occasions and most recently in a performance of new works by students at Princeton U’s Cone Institute. She is excellent and has the ability to command the respect of the players while not losing sight of the fact that the process is a collaboration to a great extent; something that does not always happen.

halcro, very funny; certainly no derision intended 🤨 And, noromance, no apology ever necessary as far as I am concerned. Sometimes the best observations are gut reactions not encumbered by a lot of “facts” and the inevitable bias. I will comment on the MIT/Victor later today.

MIT vs Victor X1-IIE

Again, difficult to tell how much of what is heard is a result of the way the music is recorded for uploading to YouTube, but certain patterns emerge. The piano on this recording is heard from a more realistic perspective than the previous piano recording with some distance between the instrument and the mics which allows some room sound to be heard.  In this comparison, for me, the Victor wins hands down. 

MIT:

While I like the immediacy and speed, I just don’t like what this cartridge does to the sound of the right hand of the piano.  The same thinness and clangy quality that I heard on the previous recording is here again.  Beginning around 1:30, with the accented right hand chords, the sound of the instrument takes on a very unnatural metallic and thin quality.  Again, how much of this is the result of the upload or the less that sophisticated recording method is hard to say, but this is what is heard.

Victor:

Better balanced and more natural piano sound.  Much less, almost none of the metallic and clangy quality in the right hand heard with the MIT.  Unlike the Garrott in the previous comparison, it doesn’t sound as if the high frequencies and harmonics are tamped down, but simply closer to correct.  As a result the midrange doesn’t sound too thick and lacking brilliance as with the Garrott.  

Any advantage that the MIT may seem to have in the dynamic aliveness department is probably a result of its more brilliant character.  I would say that both are about equal in this department; surprising to me given that the Victor is a MM.  A bit of a leap considering that they have been heard with different recordings, but this may be my favorite Victor so far.  Is this X1- IIE the same cartridge that chakster referred to early on as simply the X1-II?  If so, I understand why he prefers it to the X1.

Thanks for writing my impressions for me, noromance 😃 .  Great description and I agree word for word.  Loved the Decca; but then I have always liked Deccas.

A bit of possible descriptive excess:

The clarity in the bass let’s one hear the pitches of notes better than with the FR.  Beautiful vocal quality with the Decca.  The FR has a little bit of a “hands cupped around the mouth” quality.

Great example of its emotional quality are the sustained vocal notes at the end of each phrase.  Examples: the words “heart”, “apart”, “sigh”.  Ketty sustains that last word of the phrase, but also maintains or slightly increases the vocal intensity for a nice dynamic “push” through the sustained word all the way to the arrival on the sibilant “t”.  That little dynamic push is more obvious with the Decca.  The reduced clarity of the FR at times makes the sibilant “t” seem almost detached and separate from the word itself.  

Thank you, halcro.  Fascinating comparison. I have never owned a Grace cartridge, but am well aware of their reputation.  A few years ago I posted several comments on the ET2 thread about my experiences with this Acutex.  I found it to have some very interesting traits including excellent dynamic nuance and some of the best controlled and tuneful bass that I had ever gotten from my ET2.  

The Acutex is not a “beautiful” sounding cartridge.  Switching to the Grace is almost shocking, first impression is of a much more refined sound.  With the Grace every individual instrument’s tone up to the upper midrange is more “beautiful”.  The perspective is more closeup and the Acutex more distant.  The overall sound is larger and much juicer compared to the Acutex’s much drier sound.  

However, the Grace can sound a little thin and forward from the upper mids on up.  The harpsichord seems to get thrown forward at times in a way that seems unnatural.  The Acutex keeps the harpsichord in better perspective relative to the other instruments.  It has a way of separating musical lines in a way that allows the listener to better understand the composition.  While the overall sound may seem too dry and colorless (music has color), I find that after one adjusts to its “sound” it is apparent that it does a better job of creating the illusion of instruments playing in a real space even if the space itself is not particularly attractive sounding; a dry, non-reverberant space.  The sound with the Grace always reminds me that it is a recorded sound; a sound recorded in a larger more  reverberant space.  

If I’m looking for the ear candy aspect of listening the Grace wins.  If I wan to listen to the music without my audiophile hat on the Acutex wins.

Wow!  Thanks for the nice comments, gentlemen.  And this in spite of the fact that I once mistook halcro’s phone ringtones for an electronic keyboard; ringing perfectly in time to the music.  Glad I was able to regain some cred 😊. 

Halcro, I seem to recall reading that you use a pair of subs?

Short on time right now and will post some details later, but wanted to chime in that I completely agree with noramance’s (and halcro’s) descriptions.  However, not sure yet that I agree with the implied hierarchy (preference).  Great day everyone.

I think that noromance’s comments are excellent. Lots of ear candy on this most recent recording. Lovely singing, too.

Acknowledging the fact that the Signets have been heard with two different recordings, on two different arms, and this one with a new stylus 🤪, I almost would not have believed that the Signet heard previously is the same cartridge as this one. I agree that this Signet is more forward than the Decca as noromance points out and that it has more air. “Better” air? Maybe. I think the comments about brightness and questionable “accuracy” are interesting and valid. Accuracy to the recording, of course; because to me the Decca makes the music sound less electronic and with more of the lucidity that live sounds have. Obviously, if the brightness and forward quality are what is on the recording then the Signet is indeed more “accurate”.

The Signet seems to make a huge, extended and voluminous sound in halcro’s room and (on my Stax cans) sounds like the sound is on the cusp of overloading the room; borderline boomy. The sound is, as noromance says, very forward; almost uncomfortably so. The sound seems too full through the lower mids which makes the male vocals sound too chesty and thick. This was the reason I asked about subwoofers. The first time I listened it reminded me of the times I have the xover point on my subs set too high which adds too much thickness to male vocals. Of course, a lot of this is personal taste. I think the Signet sounds more dynamic partly because the volume level heard is slightly lower with the Decca. If I adjust the listening volume up slightly for the Decca, perceived dynamics improve.

I loved the Decca’s sound fhe first time and I love it now. Gorgeous female vocal
sound. I agree it doesn’t sound as exciting as the Signet at first; but, while the sound with the Signet seems to be thrown in my face, I find that my shoulders relax when I listen to the Decca. I hear an easy clarity, lucidity and absence of grain through the midrange. I miss a little of the Signet’s apparent bass power, but I definitely don’t miss the overblown upper bass/lower mids and overly thick male voice.  Clearly, both excellent cartridges; but, I love the Decca. 😍

Bummer about your lost post, noromance; always interesting to read your comments and I agree with your preference for the Signet.

Great recording! For whatever it may be worth, the greatest percentage of recordings that I own which I consider the best as concerns sonics are Deccas.

Three different Signets on three different arms playing three different recordings. My favorite sound from a Signet heard so far; and by far. “Purpose”, I like that and I agree. I don’t like how the Sony makes strings sound. Too tight and steely resulting in harshness when the going gets tough. The Signet deviates from “right” in the opposite direction, but not to the same degree and, overall, I much prefer the Signet.  The bass region is powerful, but doesn’t sound overblown as with the previous Signet.  It does a great job with massed strings letting one hear that there are many individual instruments playing.  Very full and opulent sound that sounds very realistic in many ways in spite of the slightly “gray” character that I hear with most MM’s.  

At the risk of being presumptuous I wonder if it might be possible to hear this same recording with the Decca and on the same Dynavector arm? I would love to hear this recording on the Decca and it would put some of my impressions in better perspective and answer some questions that I have. Thanks!

Absolutely appreciate your enthusiasm. Thank you for indulging me to the extent that you could. I totally understand your explanation and I certainly trust your reasoning behind the chosen cart/arm combinations. It is a treat to be able to hear this very impressive collection of cartridges on such superb equipment; even with the limitations of the methodology.

Hearing the Signet and Decca on the same arm and table is fascinating and confirms much of what I have been hearing so far from and about each of the two cartridges. Both are clearly terrific cartridges. However, since the goal here is to describe the differences, to my ears and preferences the difference between the two can be summarized very succinctly. Decca: more of the music.

From the very first chord of the piece one of the main differences is heard. Consistent with the thickness in the lower mids/upper bass that I have noted in previous comparisons involving the Signet, the basses and celli are pushed forward a bit and “crowd” the violas and violins playing an octave higher; not to mention the bassoons and horns which also play. The balance between the four different sections of string instruments (violins, violas, celli, basses) is better allowing the character of each to be heard more clearly without the cello and basses dominating. The question becomes: is this because the lower mid/upper bass is a little more prominent with the Signet or because the Decca is more realistically brilliant in the highs allowing the character of the violins to balance out the blend even when playing in their lower range? I think it is a little of both. The sound is more realistically linear with the Decca and a little bit tubby with the Signet. In a way the effect is analagous 😉, but in reverse (?) to the effect that users of good subwoofers experience. Even when there is no obvious bass content in the music, good and well integrated subwoofers give midrange and hf sounds more body and weight. The Decca’s linearity through the highs gives mid and low frequency sounds more clarity...those pesky harmonics. It also gives trumpets more realistic brilliance without the slightly pinched quality they have with the Signet and trombones more realistic raspiness. With the Decca they have both brilliance and body. Then there is the issue of dynamics (the music):

Both do a very good job with dynamics, but with the Signet one gets the feeling that when the music turns less exuberant and is quieter and slower that the conductor loses some focus. This is obviously not the case as it is not heard this way with the Decca. I hear better clarity of musical intent with the Decca. The musical intensity is better sustained when there is less sheer volume.

This composition has several instances when a short musical motif is “handed off” from one instrument (or section of instruments) to another. Two examples: @1:15 (basses to cellos to violins to violas) and @3:14 (violas, to 1rst violins, to 2nd violins, to clarinets). With the Signet these four note motifs sound a little discreet. With the Decca one hears a little more of the intent of each player (or section) to connect and hand it off to the next player without losing as much musical “steam” in the process in order to create a longer musical line, the sum of the individual motifs. 

Don’t mean to sound like a broken record 😉, but the Decca does it for me.

Btw, adorable young audience member’s voice heard. I suspect she was agreeing that the Decca is king 😊?

The Empire was also one of the first MM’s that I acquired after starting to follow Raul’s thread (the first was the Azden MP50VL).

I find the comments re the FR’s warmth interesting and I may be reading too much into them and halcro’s choice to point this out re the FR and not the Empire. I don’t disagree about the description, but it is interesting because to my ears the Empire is even more so in the camp of warm and full-bodied. The FR, compared to the Empire, seems to rob the slide guitar of body. When Ry plays in the uppermost range of the instrument it almost sounds as if the strings are suspended in air as opposed to being attached to the body of the guitar. The sound in that range is thinner and more metallic, while with the Empire the guitar’s resonating cavity is more easily heard for what I think is a better tonal balance.

For me this comparison highlights one of the most interesting aspects of system tuning. It also goes to a question that halcro asked early on: Is it possible to hear that his system’s amplification is ss?  My system is all tube and in that context, while the Empire sounds very good it tends to tilt the balance too far in the direction of warmth and the sound can be overly full without enough incisiveness in transients and high frequencies in general. What I am hearing in the context of halcro’s ss based system sounds fantastic. The Empire seems a better fit in a ss system than in an all tube system like mine.

I think that “speed” means different things to different listeners.  For me, speed is what I have previously tried to describe as “sense of aliveness”.  It is where the emotional component of music is found (heard).  Then there is the issue of how tonal balance influences perceived “speed”.  A cartridge that does not properly decode the high frequency information in the grooves might sound thick and tubby and the absence of a good leading edge will distort the rhythm component of music.  The MIT/Shure comparison is a good example of this.

No contest.  To my ears the MIT is a far superior cartridge.  Even though the balance is clearly tilted too far to the high frequencies it is, overall, much better at letting the drums sound like drums and not cardboard boxes and papery cymbals like the Shure does by comparison.  The excessive brightness would probably be a deal breaker for me ‘though.  The sound of the Shure is very much as I remember my Shure’s sounding in my system: grayish in color without enough brilliance and definition in the highs and an overall “soft” sound.  

The MIT’s soundstage sounds huge and expansive while the Shure’s seems smaller.  Even the space occupied by the live audience in the overall sound stage seems a lot smaller by comparison.  While the MIT’s excessive brightness distracts one can still hear the differences in timbre between the different drums and cymbals while the Shure homogenizes the various sounds.   I hear a bit of thickness in the lower mids that is similar to what I hear in my system when the xover point on my REL subs is set a few hertz too high; I lose a little midrange clarity.  

Thanks, halcro.

BTW, I do have some thoughts on the Signet/FR MC, some of which relate to the above.  

I listened again on my Stax Lamda Pro/tube driver.  I had previously listened using brand new earbuds which I am realizing are definitely overly bright sounding.  With the Stax the MIT does not sound onjectionably bright, but pretty well balanced; and the Shure, as expected, sounds even more covered and dull sounding.  

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.

Harold, I don’t doubt it at all and as we all know system context is very important. Curious, have you tried the AT 150 that the 180 was compared to? I haven’t owned either one, but would consider purchasing the 150 if I can find one; I think it would be a good fit in my system. BTW, I agree with you re the Acutex; I like it very much, but I wouldn’t call it magical either. Regards.

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 🤪, 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!

**** To me....they sound almost identical !! ****

Ah, but you said “almost”; not, identical to. You did also say that to you the 180 “had the magic”. You clearly are hearing differences. So, how to describe what keeps them from sounding identical and one less magical? It always helps to somehow try and relate what one hears in audiophillic terms to the music. “Correct” terminology is secondary. I may have gotten more detailed in my descriptions, but all those details go under two general categories of types of details that noromance pointed out in his description: “clearer and with more insight”. We agree about the two cartridges and said essentially the same thing.

Perhaps it wasn’t clear from my earlier comments, and to reiterate and clarify: I think that the AT 180 is an excellent sounding cartridge.  My comments, as always, were about the subtle differences between it and the other cartridge (the 150) being compared.  By no means should my commemts be taken to suggest that I thought the 180 is a “bad” sounding cartridge.

Re the Sony/SPU Silver:

I agree with noromance’s comment that the SPU sounds thinner and more “spluttery” (love it!) on the pipes.  However, my feeling is that the SPU is doing a better job of telling us what is actually on the recording, splutter and all.  The first clue to this possibility is heard with the very first note of the recording.  The guitar sounds more realistic with the SPU, letting us hear a more appropriate metal “twang” on that first note and throughout the piece.  By comparison, the attack of the guitar plucks sound a little too round and covered with the Sony.  The Sony also has a rather bleached tonal character while the SPU lets us hear more of the natural colors of the instruments.  There is also more overall clarity with the SPU letting us more clearly hear the very gentle conga drum playing which gets a little lost in the background with the Sony.

To me the SPU sounds more realistic overall.  In the folk music (with some Baroque thrown in) style heard here pipes are normally played with the very prominent and almost percussive breath attack that we hear  The question becomes whether the SPU is exaggerating this splutteriness 😊 or not.  Given the SPU’s more realistic guitar sounds which normally have a lot of high frequency content and the slightly covered guitar sound of the Sony, my sense is that the SPU is the more accurate (to the recording) of the two.

Victors:

Well, I am not prepared to say which is the best by listening to only one recording this way, but I am pretty comfortable saying which is my favorite: The X-1IIE. My least favorite: the X-1II

With both the X-1 and X-1II high frequencies sound overly prominent to the point of distraction and with excessive sibilance on the vocals. I like the X-1 very much for its very naturally colorful midrange. With the X1IIE the midrange is also naturally colorful, but high frequencies are much better controlled and balanced. Possibly as a result of this, vocals and the midrange in general sound fuller and more natural.

Sorry to disappoint, halcro.  I promise some thoughts on all by the end of the weekend.  Best to all.

Palladian/Garrott/MR5:

Not sure how one could quantify “how close” an inexpensive cartridge can come to the sound of the Palladian, but the Palladian is clearly in a different league than the other two.  It gives a much bigger dose of the natural timbre of instruments.  The sound of the triangle is an obvious one.  With the P it has an appropriate metallic brilliance and one hears a longer decay of its ring.  Other percussion instruments also sound more realistic.  With the Garrott it’s hard to tell that it is a cowbell being played.  With the P it is obvious.  One also hears more of the snap of the hand on the conga drum along with more of its woody timbre.

The MR5 gets closer to the level of the P than the Garrott which makes high frequency sounds too covered and dull.  The MR5 also sounds too covered by comparison, but less so.  Neither approach the level of overall clarity that the P has. 

Palladian/TK-7:

Holy Grail recording and one of my favorites.  Great recording and performance of this beautiful music.

Well, as with the Decca, I’m not prepared to say that the Palladian sounds $9,000 better than the less expensive cartridge; but, it sure sounds a lot better.  In fact, probably due to the more demanding nature of this music, I would say that I hear more of a disparity between the overall sound of the Palladian and that of the TK-7 than I did between the Palladian and the MR5 playing Marvin Gaye.

Right from the first woodwind chords one hears better clarity of timbre with the Palladian.  The TK-7 actually sounds as if it is on the verge of mistracking on the opening woodwinds with a hint of distortion at the end of each phrase where the winds play loudest.  The harp sounds much more realistic and one hears the correct urgency in the way that the player plays the arpeggios that answer the woodwinds.  The harp sounds beautiful with the Palladian; much more realistic color.  Not only is there more clarity in the upper range of the instrument, but notice to how the single plucked low notes on the left hand sound much more realistically resonant and one actually hears the decay of the sound of the vibrating string.  The clarinet player’s wonderful phrasing is much more clear in its subtle pushes and pull backs of the tempo.  With the TK-7 that phrasing and the overall musical energy seems more subdued.  The massed strings sound fabulous with the Palladian.  They sound good and beautifully full with the TK-7, but not quite as natural and I hear a similar effect as with the opening winds: as if it is on the verge of mistracking and a hint of distortion is heard in the loudest passages. 

The Palladian sounds like a killer cartridge.  Is it $9000 better?  I don’t know, but for the difference in price it should sound better...a lot better.  Speaking for myself, if I had it and the TK-7, while I like the TK-7 a lot it would spend a lot more time in the cartridge drawer than the Palladian.

Thanks for letting us hear these fabulous cartridges.  Listening was done on my Stax/tube driver set.

A couple of additional facts re this wonderful recording which, as halcro points out, should be a must-own for audiophiles. If one is to own only one recording of Classical music this one is definitely one to consider as the one. The pedigree of this recording is immaculate with associated names that should be familiar to all audiophiles who care about such matters:

The music is “Waltz Of The Flowers” from Tchaikovsky’ “Nutcracker” Ballet. The recording engineer was the legenday Kenneth Wilkinson who engineered so many of the great Decca/London recordings and it took place at London’s Kingsway Hall one of the best concert halls in the world. This one was licensed by RCA/Victor from Decca for its premium “Soria” series. In my experience any recording made by Wilkinson is worth owning if only for its sound.

Halcro, you flatter me and I confess to feeling a bit uncomfortable being the arbiter of which is best. This has been educational for me and I am glad to, time allowing, continue to offer my thoughts as my honest impressions and opinions only; while acknowledging that we all have at least somewhat different priorities and preferences when it comes to sound and that system context and the limitations of this methodology needs to be taken into account.

I don’t think that you “(have) been wrong all these years in thinking that the very best vintage MM cartridges of yesteryear can play on the same field as the best modern MCs”. No two cartridges will sound the same; often, not even two different samples of the same cartridge.  The fact that a vintage MM can compete at all with a $10,000 modern MC is kind of miraculous.  Detectable subtle differences favoring one cartridge or another don’t invalidate or diminish what they each do at least very well. I have to assume that since you don’t regret purchasing the $10,000 Palladian that you hear something in its sound that justifies the price disparity. I know that if didn’t hear any advantage that I would regret having spent the money. “Same playing field”? That one is tricky. If there were no differences in the sound between a cartridge like the Palladian and the Signet then the price discrepancy would not be justified. I have no doubt that there are many high priced MC’s that don’t sound, overall, as good as the Signet.

Thanks again.

Catching up to you guys. Listened on my Stax/tube set.

Palladian/MIT:

Once again, I wish I could say that the less expensive cartridge (MIT) sounds as good as the Palladian, but I just don’t hear it that way. They both sound very good, but the Palladian refuses to add extra body to the midrange/lower mids. The first minute or so of the recording tells the whole story:

From the very first notes of the piece one hears a little less false roundness to the left hand (lows) of the piano with the Palladian; a good thing. The MIT sounds slightly (!) tubby by comparison while the Palladian lets one hear more of the natural resonance and decay of low notes. Partly as a result of this the mids sound a little less incisive with the MIT; sounding, again, a little too round without as much natural leading edge. As always, the extra thickness obscures musical performance detail. The most obvious difference can be heard beginning at around :50 in the “forte” chord passages and with the sharply struck individual high notes. On demanding passages the MIT’s character seems to change dramatically (relatively) and almost sounds like a not particularly good upright piano instead of a good grand. It starts to sound clangy and almost metallic. Not good. The Palladian remains much more “composed” without strain or hint of mistracking which may be the reason for the clangy quality that the MIT exhibits on loud passages.

Palladian/Victor:

I agree with noromance that the Palladian sounds recessed by comparison. However, I’m not sure that I would agree that it sounds “colored” compared to the Palladian. “Colored” means different things to different listeners and to me the Palladian sounds closer to what I might hear during a live performance. I think that the “recessed” quality of the Palladian is simply the way it was recorded and the extra midrange juice of the Victor may be pushing things forward a bit for a seemingly less recessed quality. Much of what was heard in the Palladian/MIT comparison applies, but even more so. The Victor (most of the Victors, so far) have a very juicy midrange/lower mids that, while very attractive, is not necessarily the most natural and is, in fact, what I would call “colored”.

Even before the tune begins we can hear a difference in the tonal character of each cartridge. The audience sounds sound slightly muffled with the Victor. Then, listen to the introductory guitar accompaniment. Notice how much “bigger” the single low note that starts each measure of the ostinato guitar line is; almost as if it is being played by a different and larger instrument. That low note should have the same tonal character as the upper notes and sound more like a natural and integrated part of the musical line as heard with the Palladian. Then, when the bass enters things get a little too thick and borderline boomy for me and all that extra juice obscures some of the beautifully simple vocal harmonies.

As always, taking into account the limitations of listening this way and possible system synergy issues, I think that the Palladian is a kicka$$ cartridge. It is amazing that far less expensive cartridges can compete in any way, but still....no free rides, as they say.  I also think that being used to the terrible leanness and lack of natural tonal body of much “audiophile”-pedigree sound it is easy to be seduced by components that possibly swing too far in the opposite direction. As with most things, the truth is usually in the middle.

Thanks, all.

**** However, I’m not sure that I would agree that it sounds “colored” compared to the Palladian ****

Should read:

**** However, I’m not sure that I would agree that it (Palladian) sounds “colored” compared to the Victor ****

Sorry.