Dear Toufu: Good that you already try/change it and IMHO you still could improve the quality performance if instead of those RS resistors change it for the ones that Dgarretson use: Caddock TF020.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgarretson: Well, it seems to me that now we have an assent that 100K is a good choice for MM/MI cartrridges.
I'm with you too on:
+++++" These improvements are reminiscient of a good MC cartridge-- further diminishing any advantage that MC might have in the areas of resolution & spatiality. " +++++
things are that Axelwahl is running his cartridges at 47K and that's a difference.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul: I also own a Pickering XSV-4000, Stanton 881 MKII-s, Nagaoka MP-30, Shure V15 Type III w/Jico SAS, Ortofon Super OM40. The Pickering XSV-5000 w/D7500 stereohedron stylus is at the head of the class in realism. Even when I swap out the stylus for a new original D5000 stylus, something subtle is lost. There are relatively small but meaningful gains among the Pickering/Stanton carts I own, from the Stanton 881 w/ Jico Shibata up through the XSV-5000 w/D7500 stylus. They all best the others I own - simply a more realistic portrayal of the music. |
I replaced the stock 47K resistor with a pair of cheap RadioShack 100K 1/2watt resistors. I agree with the posters about the difference. The sound seems more clean and airy. Thanks for the tip! |
Dear Stringreen: Well that 3K LOMC is a good cartridge. I don't have many experiences over Grado cartridges other than The Amber Tribute ( exceptional one. ) but if I remember Pryso change from Grado to one of the MM/MI amed here and he was very satisfied.
Maybe it is time that you try some ( one ) of the very good MM/MI that offer this alternative, I'm sure that, like many other people, you will be nicely surprise of how good are those cartridges.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: I'm using a humble unipivot Grace G-940 with own Grace magnesium headshell.
Btw, I'm not a fan of unipivot ones but this Grace along Satin are surprisly good.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
This morning I for the first time added 100K loading to modded ARC PH-2, and compared P-76 at 47K and 100K. I used Caddock TF020 resistors each instance. This fully balanced SS PH-2 is stroked with resistor upgrades and around fifty teflon and other good film capacitors throughout. Except for lower gain it gets close to my modded hybrid Atma MP-1.
My impression of 100K loading is similar to timeltel above. With 100K the good character of P-76 is enhanced with improved inner detail & refinement in HF. These improvements are reminiscient of a good MC cartridge-- further diminishing any advantage that MC might have in the areas of resolution & spatiality. The difference is great enough to conclude that you need to try 100K to hear what MM can do. Raul, you were very creative in your investigation of resistive loads well outside the conventional wisdom of 47K. |
Dear Toufu: You already has at least the answer of Timetel regarding the different load impedance values ( I agree with )and like you I'm interest on other people opinion.
The one for sure ( because he can make the change in " real time " : ) that could do it is Dgarretson and I hope he can share with us his experiences on the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear jb0194: I don't own or owned that Pickering cartridge but the similar Stanton model and I concur with your statement on its quality performance. Btw, which other MM/MI cartridges do you own?
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Raul:
"but if a type of electronics ( SS or Tube ) needs a specific kind of " sound signature " ( MC or MM. ) audio link like cartridge then IMHO something wrong with that electronics that can't handle with nearer the same quality performance both cartridge designs other that that electronics were designed in specific for MM or MC cartridges".
I completely agree. But, what this says to me is that audio devices are ALL still very far away from being even close to truly neutral. When all is said and done, MM's are probably, as a group, no closer to the sound of the real thing than MC's are. And tubes, as a group, are no closer to the sound of the real thing than SS. It is the balance achieved by our chosen combination of components that gets us (hopefully) closer. Of course we all have different aspects of sound that we focus on, or are more sensitive to. Some of us want tonal neutrality even at the expense of realistic micro-dynamics, some want frequency extension even at the expense of midrange neutrality, etc. We try to balance all this out, and make as few major compromises as possible. |
|
Regarding the Grado Sonata low output...I had one and replaced it with a Benz Ebony LP. The Grado in contrast sounded very grainy, muddy, brown in character, with limited high end response. I have been using Grado cartridges for years. I knew him personally and we tinkered in his Westfield, NJ basement. He was a professional singer which is why vocals sounded so good, however, things move on. |
Dear Frogman: +++++ " HP of TAS has always been a fan of MC's. Another prominent reviewer, REG has always been a fan of MM,s. I don't think its a coincidence that HP is, for the most part, partial to tube amplification, and REG a strong supporter of SS designs. I think this is a great example of the balance that I am talking about. " +++++
I agree than synergy is critical in the audio system configuration/build but if a type of electronics ( SS or Tube ) needs a specific kind of " sound signature " ( MC or MM. ) audio link like cartridge then IMHO something wrong with that electronics that can't handle with nearer the same quality performance both cartridge designs other that that electronics were designed in specific for MM or MC cartridges.
I'm for the universal intrinsic operation of audio devices ( especially on electronics. ), it is only a point of view.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Pryso: +++++ " but I've come to realize none of these pros would compromise their work with cartridges that did not produce what they need to hear compared to the master tapes. " +++++
and that's why they choose MM/MI ones.
Thank you to add " light " to the subject.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Lew, In my case it's a Trans-fi linear air arm. I wonder if one aspect of success with P-76 may be synergy of this arm with a high-compliance light tracker. |
Lewm..I use only tangent arm with the p-76..the old Rabco SL 8e
I Have many pivoted Arms that I would like to try on the P-76 but I just cannot get over how well the old Rabco works/sounds first rate is you ask me
Good Listening! |
Raul and others, what tonearms and headshells are you using with the P76? I am wondering whether there is a commonality to your listening experiences. I am probably going to try mine in a Dyna DV505 first. |
Dear Dean_man: In general almost all audio reviews are out of reality, I know that all reviewers say that what they " posted " is what they heard but sometimes is so " wrong/unreliable " what they write that I serious put on question that they are really honest, corruption is everywhere and unfortunately the audio magazynes reviews has especial " weight " in the audio designer goals.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Greetings, Toufu. If I may respond to your question: In regard to loading at 100K vs. 47K, differences will be subtle but rewarding. I found improvement in articulation and presence in insturments playing above 8kHz. Overtones of reeds, brass and cymbols gained a sparkling character without having a "chrome plated" effect. Any rolloff from 16kHz was minimalized to my ear. On my gear, tonal balance is improved and percussive transients sharper in their presentation. Before and after recordings clearly demonstrate positive change in my system. |
How significant of a change can I expect if I change the load resistor from 47K to 100K? |
Just a brief word of praise for the Pickering XSV-5000 MM. Found one in great shape (no stylus) on Ebay for $65 and sprung ($280) for one of the few remaining NIB original Pickering D7500 styli. Simply outstanding in all respects! |
|
Dear Lewm: I think that there is not only one factor ( like gain or moving mass ) that determine the differences but the combination/relationship of several factors in each cartridge design.
No one of each design ( LOMC and MM/MI ) are perfect, both has its own trade-offs and " today " IMHO the MM/MI alternative is nearer to that " perfection " at least to our ears.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dgarreston: +++++ " There is a set-and-forget quality about MM that makes MC seem fussbudget. " +++++
I think and concur with you that that is one of the main characteristics of those cartridges against MCs, the natural and easy flow of the music is something stunning.
Btw, I don't detect yet any mistracking on the P-76 on sharp transientes, maybe this can happen due to a not the best matching tonearm: I can't be sure, or maybe it needs more hours to settle-down.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hi all, yes, lots of things seem to play into it. For my setup, it's all SS, it ALWAYS just seems to sound more 'complete' when I run MM or MI.
It is a weird thing, that MC seems to have 'everything' more in terms of transient-speed and -resolution- of sorts, maybe 'false' resolution? But at the same time there is something 'missing' with MCs and I think it has to do with lack of 'harmonic completeness'. Rationally all seems to be there, but emotionally, subjectively, it sounds too perked up and slightly bleach in my SS system, highlighted/exaggerated and yet somehow ‘empty’ at the same time, actually just NOT the way real music sounds.
I guess if I had all tubes it might easily be very different. Incidentally I use the exact same phono-pre gain for both MC and MM (60dB) but change the input gain of my ML pre-amp instead (+ or - 18dB), if I use MC without SUT.
The trouble with all this guess work --- only the ear can notice the difference. Currently available measuring technique is not able to help pin it down, it's too subtle for measurement. Axel |
Dear Frogman: +++++ " I think that one of the big factors affecting the perceived sonic advantage/disadvantage of MM's vs. MC's, and one which has not been analyzed nor discussed nearly enough, has to do with output level, and the interaction of the cartridge, as concerns output level, with the phono stage. " +++++
certainly the output level between MC and MM/MI cartridges is another difference factor and IMHO not precisely because a LOMC cartridge has not the " guts " because it has but more because the cartridge signal in each one design ( MC and MM ) is " manupulated " in different way by the analog audio links ( phono stage, cables, SUT, connectors, air electromagnetic and RF pollution, etc, ).
We have to think that the LOMC signal is more sensitive to add noises/distortions and lose its integrity due to many outside " pollution " factors including its travel through the tonearm cables than the MM/MI higher output cartridges.
Other factors are the additional stages ( that the MM/MI did/do not. ) where the LOMC cartridges signal has to pass to achieve the right gain for the amplifier signal amplification.
To amplify the LOMC cartridge signal always is a big challenge because it is not only the subject of gain and overload/gain but that that gain must be a " clean gain " with very low noise and very low distortions: this is the heavy challenge that only a few phonolinestages ( that maybe I can count with the fingers of one hand only, maybe less. ) out there can say: I do it in the right way!.
The degradation of the LOMC signal in all those additional stages makes a huge difference against a more " clean, accurate and less-touched " ( less additional noise/distortions/colorations. ) MM/MI cartridge signal ( and Axel I don't " touch " the SUT subject yet. ).
Obviously that both trasducers ( MC and MM ) are diferent on its signal generator principle but IMHO either type cartridge can be intrinsical near perfect ( diferent roads to Rome. ) per se but each design needs are manipulated in different way by the after-cartridge analog audio links.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Lharasim, you're telling me! Guilty here of many years playing in civic orchestras, etc etc, and still attending 40+ concerts annually myself...
Perhaps I should have chosen another analogy about inner detail in reality vs highlighted/exaggerated inner detail in some playback devices--but I hope you got the intention :)
Jim |
Another thought on Raul's question.
When HP began publishing TAS in the mid-70s, I don't believe MCs were yet dominant in high end audio. This was still the era of Shure, Stanton, ADC, Empire, Grado, etc. MM and MI cartridges.
But HP quickly became very influential in the industry and he favored spatiality and soundstaging detail. These were areas when MCs seemed to excel so they were what HP reviewed and recommended. Later we learned that HP's preferred seat at Carnegie Hall (and I assume other venues) was dead center, second or third row. No wonder he considered soundstaging so important and looked to replicate it at home! The fact that few of us prefer (or can get) similar seating was not considered in our cartridge selections. But readers of his reviews also began demanding MC cartridges which produced large and detailed sounstages. Cartridge manufacturers were happy to respond.
Some years ago I noticed that several well respected mastering engineers still used MM or MI cartridges in their work -- Sax, Grundman, Kavi Alexander, Ricker, etc. So I began to wonder, if these cartridges were good enough for engineers to judge their work against master tapes, why were they not good enough for home audio? But then one friend suggested that professionals needed cartridges with user replaceable styli to repair damaged/worn out diamonds on the spot. Time was money!
In hind sight, the replacement factor may or many not be true, but I've come to realize none of these pros would compromise their work with cartridges that did not produce what they need to hear compared to the master tapes.
So Raul, thank you for providing the inspiration for so many of us to go back and experience these MM and MI designs. |
Jim you may not believe this while listening to a recording Most/Many people that play in an orchestra want to stand out and hear there instrument being played....just ask some
I myself do not agree I want to hear the WHOLE orchestra togetherness if you will...
Good Listening! |
Making absolutist generalizations about this stuff is precisely what gets in the way of productive thinking, which would lead to better choices of hi-fi gear.
Audio and music seem to promote very strong opinions about what is good and what is not. Ultimately, if it causes us to feel passionatelu about them, it's a good thing; as long as it does not blind us to other possibilitie, and alternative ways of lppoking at an issue. Flexibility is the key.
It is unlikely that higher output is THE thing that makes the MM sound attractive. It is that and other aspects of the inherent sound of MM's in the context of a particular audio system that is the key. Balance is the key. Wether we are always willing to admit it or not, regardless of price or performace level, we are always balancing one component's sonic attributes or deficiencies with those of the other components in the system.
On the issue of reviewers this is very relevant. One of the most influential reviewers of all time, HP of TAS has always been a fan of MC's. Another prominent reviewer, REG has always been a fan of MM,s. I don't think its a coincidence that HP is, for the most part, partial to tube amplification, and REG a strong supporter of SS designs. I think this is a great example of the balance that I am talking about. IMO. the MM's denser, more corpulent images tend to be a better match for SS amplification's tendency to a drier presentation. Conversely, MC's finer deliniation of detail, and arguably thinner images, tend to be a better match for tube gear's jucier inherent sound. Obviously, these are generalizations, but they help explain some of our preferences and b iases.. . |
Dear Raul, I agree with your statements about perceived customer expectations, possible influence of reviewers on those expectations, and perceived pressure that designers may feel.
I've never seen the second bassoonist of an orchestra stand on his chair during a performance, when his important bit was to be played (just to make sure that everyone hears it). But audio reviews sometimes make it seem that highlighting of inner detail is exactly what the listener should hear with a good cartridge?
Jim
|
Dear Dean_man: I think that other factor is the tremendous presure that have the cartridge designers when ( for commercial business. ) the customers are asking for un-real quality performance audio devices that the customer ask sometimes because very low know-how and sometimes because several of those " terrible " audio magazine reviewers that made a wrong " orientation " about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
|
Raul, Axel, Dave, Frogman, et al: Yes, it's got to have something to do with the hugely different gain characteristic of MM vs MC. But if this is all, then why don't MI cartridges stand out head and shoulders above the rest? A well-designed MI cartridge has lower moving mass than an MC and voltage output similar to an MM, the putative "best" of both worlds. I am thinking that vanishingly low moving mass is not all that important, once one gets down to a certain level. |
After running in the P-76 for about 10 hours(1.2g, level VTA), my initial impressions are similar to the above posters. Salient characteristic of P-76 is immersion in swing, color, and embodiment like no MC I've heard. It has dimensionality, top-to-bottom extension, frequency balance, airy treble, convincing realism. Its visceral strengths over-compensate for occasional mistracking on sharp transients. At times other than demanding transients it is highly resolving. There is a set-and-forget quality about MM that makes MC seem fussbudget. |
Dear Dean_man: +++++ " I think it's at least in part due to the goals of the designer of the item at hand. And, at least in part due to the kind of music used as a reference by the designer. " +++++
yes I agree and this is what I'm posted/thinking when I'm talk about " voicing ". In this cartridge voicing goes the goals and preferences of the designer where he test that cartridge with different kind of music in different system environments.
It is true that the customer audio perception quality performance market " suffer " changes over the years and that today is more strong the " well balanced sound image " than other critical factors that have more intrinsic relationship with the music: tonal balance, timbre, dynamics, pitch, natural aggressivenes of the music,etc, etc.
Like with other audio items and even in the recording process normaly we have/get what the designer/builder/recording producer are their personal priorities that in more or less way are near in some areas of what we are looking for but not overall similar or identic to each one of us.
Achieve the goals of all of us through a cartridge voicing is not easy and not because the designer goals ( some times. ) are totally different for us but because many other factors like the audio systems where he made the voicing and where each link in the audio chain contribute to the final sound and obviously the designer ears/brain music/audio perception that is not identical to each one of us.
Like you say in your post the voicing is only one factor on the differences and as important it is as important are other ones about.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Howdy All, Frogman you do have come up with the same explanation I did (and posted in various threads), but here comes the 'problem': I like to overcome it by using an SUT with my 0.3mV Windfeld.
Raul is no friend of SUTs in general, neither in particular, we know each other's take, agree to differ and have some 'bliss'.
Now I have received my NEW (replacement) Windfeld back from Ortofon after 3 months wait and SOME exercise in patience and then some.
I have replaced my Empire S1000ZE/X MM with the Windfeld MC and am listening right now.
Frogman, your point about transient speed and resolution is right-on as well -------- of course MUSIC is not ONLY about speed and detail. It is where those good MMs score, plain and simple.
Right now I have to go against my urge to take that Windfeld out again and put back the Empire ---- in all fairness I will TRY not do that, as I have to give that 'poor' 4k$ MC cart at least a chance of a couple of hours playing in, yes.
The point however is: how these MMs beat the socks of these 'transient & resolution master MCs' and I am playing it with an SUT! (which aught to slow it some). Without SUT, I would have a hard time to listen for 20 - 30 hours of transient-speed and high resolution detail, with a shortfall of MUSIC. It sort of pisses me off actually.
A very well regarded phono & pre-amp designer (Allen Wright) once mentioned how EVERY ELECTRON counts when you want top performance from a LOMC and I believe he knows what he is talking about.
This, Frogman, gets back to your phono-pre take and the very low voltages the phono-pre has to work with when running LOMC. In the case of MMs there is no counting of electrons indicated by having 10 to 20 times more output voltage.
I'll see for how long I'll go with the Windfeld, though right now it sounds just too 'mechanical' and lacking the liquidity and musical flow of the Empire.
I'll be back with more some time later. Cheers, Axel |
I have been following this thread wih interest, as I await the arrival of the P-mount adapter for my recently acquired P-76. I will report my impressions on it when I receive the adapter.
I have used MM's as well as MC's for as many years as I have been into audio, and I acknowledge the merits of the better MM's. I own and have used the Audio Technica ATML-170, and I agree that it is a very fine performer, and holds up very well against a lot of the better MC's that I have used. I am not, however, prepared to give up my Vandenhul MC's, yet. I will take a shot at Raul's question:
"What do you think? which is your explanation to those " alarming " differences?"
I acknowledge my limited technical knowledge, and base these impressions on experience with countless cartridges and almost as many various phono preamps.
I think that one of the big factors affecting the perceived sonic advantage/disadvantage of MM's vs. MC's, and one which has not been analyzed nor discussed nearly enough, has to do with output level, and the interaction of the cartridge, as concerns output level, with the phono stage. MM's have, for the most part, much higher output than MC's. This is a huge advantage IMO. I suspect that we don't fully understand all that is coming into play as concerns how the output level of a cartridge affects the performance of a phono stage.
I think that MC's probably have, as a group, better inherent performance as far as speed, and ability to track fast transients in a realistic way, than MM's. However, the actual perceived sonic end-result (speed-wise), is not just the result of the cartridges inherent ability in this area. It includes that, as well as how well it is able to "drive" the phono stage. Again, these are impressions based on experience and some of you more technically inclined may be able to debunk these impressions. IMO, many MC's simply don't provide the phono stage with sufficient output to properly drive it. I oftentimes get the sonic "gut feeling" (when using MC's) that the phono stage is working way to hard to amplify the puny output of most MC's (even when the phono stage has a lot of gain), instead of the cartridge "driving" the phono stage. To my ears, the best results I have gotten have been with cartridges with sufficient output so that there is a sense of balance between the catridge's ability to "drive", and the phono stage's ability to "amplify". Additionally, ability to track fast transients has been linked by many audio designers to the ability to properly soundstage, as well as other sonic parameters. |
Raul, no problem. Clarification is always welcomed. |
Siniy123: Btw, thank you for your contribution.
regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear Siniy123: You take only one factor of the all I name it that from the old cartridges I refer to: aluminum cantilever.
Yes there are some cartridges with boron ( Nagaoka ) or beryllium cantilevers but the in deeep subject in my post is not to take each word " literally " but to say that with things so different why so much quality performance differences in favor of the old designs, got it?
Dean_man take it in the sense I was looking for.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Raul, I don't agree with you that 70s-80s MC/MM/MI/Electret cartridges used lesser technologies that MC cartridges today: Some of my most favorite cartridges are using beryllium cantilevers (AT20SS, MA 630PM - very thin cantilever), beryllium pipe cantilevers (Shure ML140HE, Yamaha MC-1S). Try to find cartridge with beryllium cantilever today.
Some of my cartridges from 70s-80s have tapered titanium pipe, boron solid and pipe cantilevers and pipe sapphire cantilevers.
I can say that quality of styli was much better back then, comparing with recent top-of-the-line crop of Audio Technica and Ortofon cartridges. |
Jim:
Bullseye. IMHO, of course. |
|
Raul, regarding "What do you think? which is your explanation to those " alarming " differences?"
I think it's at least in part due to the goals of the designer of the item at hand. And, at least in part due to the kind of music used as a reference by the designer.
Stories abound about hifi designers in the 60s and 70s who voiced by ear and used live classical music as the ultimate reference. For instance a ca 1965 KLH speaker advertisement I have actually talks about the importance of reproducing orchestral sound in a concert hall environment, crescendos, and timbre! The ad copy of my ca. 1969 Empire 1000 ZE/X cartridge references the orchestra, too--"The Empire 1000 cartridge is the pulse of your entire music system. It keeps every note in true character from the lowest B of the contra bassoon to the highest C of the Piccolo." These designers worked into the 80s, through the period when the more radical stylus shapes became common. So many of these later advanced MMs from that period are mentioned in this thread, and I'm also thinking that it might be safe to assume that those same designers did not substantively change their fundamental musical goals as their careers matured and as the technology became more sophisticated.
Contrast this to ad copy of a very famous current (LOMC) cartridge that says its design focus is to provide a "well balanced sound image." That cartridge's ad copy doesn't mention music at all but instead to me reads like a checklist of audiophile and spatial attributes. A famous current MM "ensures notably detailed reproduction throughout the spectrum, including even the most high frequency groove information." Again, no mention of music.
Does this capture some of what you are alluding to?
Jim
|
Dear friends: I'm thinking why all those old and humble MM/MI cartridges sound so good ( like the P-76 ) against today cartridge designs mainly LOMC ones where the cartridge builders are using exotic build materials elsewhere the cartridge designs: neodynium magnets, boron/titatinium/diamond/ cantilevers, complex stylus shapes, minor moving mass ( micrograms. ) designs, " better " suspension materials, cantilever shapes, wood/precious stones/boron/titanium/aluminum/ceramic body build materials, etc, etc and in the MM/MI old design sides we are looking: rare earth smarium cobalt magnets ( the more " sophisticated " ones. ), spheric and elliptical stylus shape ( almost no linear/micro ridge stylus shape, maybe the Shibata one was the more " exotic " stylus shape on it. ), plastic bodies, aluminum cantilevers, nothing exotic or sophisticaded down there.
Certainly I'm not an expert on the subject because I'm not a designer/builder of phono cartridges but IMHO ( between some things ) other that the differences in technology: MM/MI against MC designs I thing that the voicing ( by the designer/builder of any cartridge ) of the cartridge is/was the main critical factor that affect in higher way the quality performance on all those cartridges and the " culprit " of those differences.
It is the designer/builder of these fine cartridges who define each one cartridge " signature sound " and as good is the audio system(s) where they made the voicing as good are those cartridges on its each one quality performance. Not an easy task because IMHO the target here is that the cartridge performs ( overall ) good in almost any enviroment. So that voicing makes a paramount difference on the cartridge intrinsic quality performance.
What do you think? which is your explanation to those " alarming " differences?
Your thoughts are very welcome.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Lewm: Now I see it, it is very hard to even imagine why the 16K on this ZYX cartridge.
Btw, any one already has the opportunity to heard/hear it?, thank's.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Toufu: +++++ " The only thing I wish it did better was seperation of instruments " +++++
I think that with a little more hours on it things will improve in this area and as a whole performance.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I got the P-76 at work today and snuck out at lunch time to install it. The first thing I noticed was the packaging, it look very nice with a heavy acrylic box housing the unit. The person I ordered it from also included a P mount adaptor. It looked very cheap, but for $4, one can hardly complain.
I mounted on my VPI scoutmaster, adjusted VTF to 1.5, eyeballed the overhang and VTA. I had a Zu Denon 103 mounted, so I removed the step up transformer. I had Mahler 1 (Kubelik DG) on so I droped the needle and sat on the couch. The first thing I noticed was how refined the sound is. I had a Shure 97 and Goldring 1042, they didn't have this refined sound. I put on some Rock (Fleetwood Mac and Van Halen), nice bass, good imaging, again, it's the refiness that makes me prefer it more than the Zu 103. I then put on some more classical and then it was time to go back to work.
So far, I like it. I can't believe it's only $75 I paid. I am going to listen to it more and write more about it once it settles.
The only thing I wish it did better was seperation of instruments, this was especially aparent on big classical sound such as Mahler, maybe it was just crappy recordings. Anyways, I will experiment more. |
Dear Siniy123: The cartridge/audio market has the same rules of other markets: offer and demand.
Unfortunatelly there are many wealthy people with very poor music/sound know how and with a high himselfs pride that pay for that kind of audio products with out care about quality performance, many of them un-know what means " quality performance " levels in a cartridge.
I'm not wealthy but if a cartridge could exist ( in the future ) that due to its unique top quality performance could justified that high price certainly I will try to buy it.
In the mid-time I shall go for all those MM/MI that give us so high emotional and so vivid music sound reproduction experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
I must agree lots of R&D money was plentiful back in the late 60's and 70's even in the early 80's at that time some of the best transistors were made........
again I agree same ol warmed over from the 80's cartridges and charging crazy stupid money..
cartridge manufactures are still using round cantilevers I say why not use triangle shape its the strongest shape ever imagined naturally...
Good Listening! |
Raul, I saw a photo of the ZYX on VA. You might check the threads there. It has a tiny blue ball at one end which is said to soak up resonances. (How often have we read that line?) Hence my allusion to your remark about "the ball" being in the court of the LOMC makers. (In the US, we say, "the ball is in your/his/their court"; it's a reference to basketball or tennis. Perhaps in soccer- or futbol- playing countries the metaphor is different.) You would probably also find a photo at the new ZYX distributor's website. |
c'mon, all those multi kbucks manufacturers are just bluffing. their research is dismal comparing to what happened in cartridge industry back in 70x-early 80x. They trying to repackage same internal cartridge guts in different gold clad cases. Every housewife knows about these marketing tricks. Have you ever seen what kind of equipment they have in their shops? How come that in the golden age of LP any cartridge hardly sold for more then $1000? Because at that time small shops couldn't compete with proper manufacturers even if they spend several hundreds dollars to manufacture their so special cartridges. |
Dear Lewm: 16K?, well this put that cartridge over the Coral but other that you can have 100 MM cartridges for that price the question could be here:
WHAT GIVE YOU FOR THOSE HEAVY ONES 16K? it could be better than the humble 50.00 P-76 or other top MM/MI performer or other LOMC cartridges? how much better if any? or for that money is only different?, because a high price means almost nothing other than big commercial business.
I can say that I want to hear it and I hope sooner or latter to be able to have that opportunity.
Btw, even if that ZYX is better that price is no-sense to me: when will stop that growing prices? justified?, I doubt but we will see.
Btw, do you have a link to at least see it?, thank you.
regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |