$800 Cartridge Shootout and Upgrade Path

Regarding the RS-A1 tonearms, I have heard many reports of good sound from them.

However, I can definitely say that from a design viewpoint it has some very significant problems. The pivot so high above the record is a big problem(geometrically), the pivoting headshell also allows unwanted arm movement to occur right at the headshell, and the lack of anti-skate and lack of cueing are problems.

If it gives good sound, then maybe none of these other things really matter, but I wouldn't use a low compliance cartridge on it. It is not stable, and has a moving headshell which would lose information like the dickens with any kind of lower compliance cartridge, and maybe even a medium or higher compliance one. IMO, it is not a good design.

Twl,

As usual, thanks for your speedy and complete response to my questions. I appreciate it!

It doesn’t surprise me to learn that there is a lack of published information about horizontal effective mass and horizontal compliance for cartridges. Because I will be buying an Origin Live tonearm and I know it will work with the cartridges I have selected, I am not going to pursue the issue any further.

It’s also good to know that the OL Encounter does not need any further modifications to handle low compliance cartridges. But the HiFi mode still looks intriguing, and it’s good to know that it doesn’t affect the vertical mass of the tonearm.

Come to think of it, the bearing housing on the OL Encounter does appear to be on the massive side, which is a good thing. And I would guess that the bearing housing on the OL Illustrious is even sturdier.

I have one last question if I may. Is the Teres 255 worth the extra $350 to get the lead-shot platter?

Thanks.

Part Two: Progress indeed!

No sooner did I get my short list down to two finalists, an urge to find the best price/performance combination took control, and the VPI turntable, once eliminated, found itself back in the lineup. Then I read a review about the Transrotor Leonardo that had my head swimming in luxury as well as audio debt. All the progress I had made earlier was slipping away. It never fails. Anytime I try to make a quick and well-informed audio-buying decision, bouts of doubt, indecision, unabashed ruminating, and excessive flights of fancy always seem to take over. I was stuck again. Somewhat despondent and equally frustrated, I posted a question on this bulletin board that started this thread over a week ago. But instead of asking directly about turntables and tonearms, I decided to inquire about phono cartridges instead.

Asking about the cartridge first seemed a logical thing to do, and if my memory serves me correctly, Julian Hirsch recommended that approach many years ago, back in the audio dark ages of the early 1970s. Julian reasoned, rightly or wrongly, that after one’s loudspeakers, the phono cartridge affects the quality and nature of the music played through one’s system more than any other component. His argument was based upon the very properties of the cartridge itself in which mechanical energy is converted into an electrical signal, which is then feed to the phono preamp and eventually converted back to mechanical energy by the speakers. It was this electromechanical interface that was the defining element of any audio system, more so than the turntable, tonearm, preamp, and amp. Julian further reasoned that the turntable contributed little so long as it was quiet, stable, and rotated the vinyl record at the correct speed. The tonearm only needed to hold the cartridge steady and track the record grooves in a reasonably faithful manner, all of which could be achieved with a little diligence during setup. And we all know his views about amps and preamps, especially solid state ones, sounding identical, or nearly so for all practical purposes.

What heady and naïve times those were to think that the attainment of quality sound could be so oversimplified to the absurd. Gordon Holt and Harry Pearson lifted this fog of simplicity and ignorance in the underground audio press, which went unread by me unit the late 1980s! There is something reassuring and gratifying, I will admit, in simple (but in this case inaccurate) explanations of complex events and interrelationships, especially those that most audiophiles confront when attempting to assemble a musically compelling system based upon component interaction and synergy. We now know that the turntable and tonearm are crucial to achieving good sound. We now know that achieving this sound is not just a matter of steadiness, consistent speed, low wow and flutter, and good tracking. We now know that the preamp and amp have a significant affect upon what we hear. But this new knowledge was subjective and not quantifiable by test-bench numbers, data often supplied by Julian Hirsch and a few others in an attempt to prove sound quality via harmonic distortion, decibels, and RIAA equalization, data that in most circumstances has limited usefulness for the typical listener.

Nevertheless my indecision was getting the better of me so a novel, but perhaps dubious approach was in order. It seemed logical that if I could identify the “right” cartridge, I could then work backwards to the tonearm, followed by the turntable and finally the phono stage. Yeah! That’s it I thought smugly; I will get my answers at last.

Little did I know that I should have started, perhaps, with the tonearm, one that would allow me to use a variety of cartridges, and then work forward and backwards. There’s more logic in this approach because several in this thread have argued that even a modest cartridge, like the Denon DL103R, could produce dazzling results when mounted onto a very good tonearm and turntable. I was told that later I could upgrade the cartridge, but I would always have the benefit of an excellent turntable and arm. Absurd you might think? “No,” I say, for I have heard a Koetsu Tiger Eye Platinum used with a Denon DP-500MX, a combination that robbed that wonderful cartridge of nearly all of its upper-octave air, bloom, and richness. Why on earth would someone use such a combination? Don’t even ask!

So the tonearm was going to be the deciding factor, and there were only two candidates vying to be number one.

To be continued...

This is one of the most interesting threads I've run across! And it's so relevant to my own TT upgrade research! I searched on Galibier since at this point I am trying to decide between the Quattro Alu and the Teres 265. When I started searching my ideas ran between the Basis 2001 and the Nott Spacedeck but as I read more and more I decided against suspended decks(2001) and felt underwhelmed by the Spacedeck though unlike Artar1 I love the look. When I discovered info on Teres and their spin-offs I was fascinated. Like Artar1 aesthetics are very important to me. I wouldn't say shallow, I prefer to think I'm sophisticated in that way but it wouldn't be the first time I was fooling myself. However with these tables I haven't read anyone saying a negative thing about them. I have heard people say that their table would destroy a Teres but it usually seems to be backed by hot air to trump up their purchase decisions and not experience. As for Stereophile ratings, I find too many tables lumped into the same class that don't make sense to me or bizarre comparisons or Art Dudley's use of a Graham Robin on the Galibier which seemed like a poor match. Which is why I seek these forums, to get more data.

Dan_ed, I'm almost tempted to wait till you get your Teres and see what the shoot-out brings! Yr thinking mirrors mine. However I have decided that suspensionless is the way I want to go. I'm looking very forward to yr results.

Artar1, thank you for starting this thread. I appreciate the knowledge that you have shared and the logical approach to this process that you have made. Oftentimes the best questions bring out the best answers and you have done well. I also think your sidebar into the tomfoolery concerning glass and steel is one of the best responses I've read to this issue. Again thanks. I run tubes myself but am not dogmatic about it.

Dougdeacon and Twl I appreciate all that you have two have shared here. It's helping me with my decision. Something Doug said brings me to my own question.

I have been leaning towards the Schroeder 1 (or DPS if that's what it's called now) arm but have not decided on the cartridge. The thing is that while I do listen to a lot of classical(former classical buyer for Tower), I would say that 60% of my listening is to rock, post-rock, punk, free jazz, noise etc. What would be a good match cartridge wise with this in mind? And the Schroeder the arm I should be thinking about? Any info concerning this would be helpful.
Also does anyone have experience with the two tables I mentioned above? I see-saw back and forth between the two as far as looks go but haven't really seen any real comparison as for sound. PVC? Wood? help?
Sorry to horn in, but it seemed like the info and the knowledge is in the neighborhood......

Artar, the lead-loaded acrylic platter increases performance over the plain acrylic, but is only a matter of degree. In my estimation, this is where the curve of "diminshing returns" starts to play heavy into the decision.

Yes it is better, but primarily in refinement. It is not as good as the wood platters, but a little better than the plain acrylic. The speed stability will be somewhat better than with the plain acrylic, due to the higher mass around the perimeter, from the lead shot there.

Basically, if cost is not a major issue, you can get some improvement there. But, if cost is not a major issue, then you could get even more improvement with a 265 or 340. I suppose the main concern is "where do you stop?" You can always get better, no matter how much you spend.

I think it is prudent to understand the turntable system in the context of your entire audio system. Is the system going to be able to resolve the added improvements in the front end? If so, then any front end improvements are quite worthwhile, if you can afford them.

According to the "rules of analog" the TT is the most important part, then the tonearm, then the cartridge. You seem to have this well understood, and it reflects in your selection of products. By improving the platter mass and construction, you can get more for the money spent, than by spending more on the cartridge(for example). But, you are already at a pretty good level with the 245/OL Encounter, and it can surely accept even more capable cartridges than the DL103R. So, in the context of your analog package, the additional platter upgrade would be a "nice thing" but may not be a "necessity". In my opinion, the most limiting item in your analog chain at present is the DL103R. I love the DL103R, and it is truly a great cartridge for the money, but it is not as good as a Shelter 501. I know this from very intimate experience with both cartridges on the same analog platform as you are getting. I'd say that if you are itching to spend some more money, the upgrade to a Shelter 501 would provide a more "balanced" analog system, which would have less limitations overall, because all the items are approximately at the same levels of performance capability. Then, for further upgrades, you could start with a TT upgrade, proceed to another arm upgrade, and then go into the upper stratosphere of cartridges. All of this will cost considerable funds to accomplish.