Hear my Cartridges....đŸŽ¶


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

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

I will be interested if people can hear any differences in these three vintage MM cartridges....
Then I might post some vintage MMs against vintage and MODERN LOMC cartridges.....đŸ€—
128x128halcro
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.






Wonderful insights once again Frogman....đŸ€—
At the end of this exercise, I think I'll ask YOU to rate my cartridges for me......✊
Interesting also to compare your thoughts with those of Noromance....
Audio is a very personal experience and that's probably why I don't know any two audiophiles with identical systems...👅

The Victor X1-IIE is the same as Chakster's X1-II except his has a Microline stylus instead of the Elliptical on my one.
'Love Letters' by Ketty Lester recorded in 1961 is from the 1945 movie of the same name.
If you have the Ketty Lester version....forget all the others 😎

Many audiophiles have heard the reverential tones used to describe the London Decca Reference Cartridge by those few who have heard or owned this 'exotica'.
My example was obtained from a dear audiophile friend in Argentina who is currently building his dream 'Listening Room'.
No. 84 is a good one.....

The vintage Fidelity Research FR-7 Series of LOMC cartridges has acquired 'Legendary' status over the past 20 years with good reason.
My FR-7f together with the FR-7fz are generally rated as the best of the genus. 

LONDON DECCA REFERENCE MI CARTRIDGE
Mounted in vintage FR-66S Tonearm on TW Acustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable.
Loaded at the peculiar 15K Ohms with 430pF capacitance, the FR-66S is the best match of all my arms for this unique gem.

FIDELITY RESEARCH FR-7f LOMC CARTRIDGE
Mounted in vintage FR-66S Tonearm on TW Acustic AC-2 Belt-Drive Turntable.



Decca - Clean, open, uncolored, unveiled, musical, emotional. Ketty is in the room.
FR - Nice (damned already!), musical in a warm and slightly irritating way, veiled by comparison, bass seems deeper but not quite as clear.

I listened to the MIT/Victor again - this time on PC/headphones. The MIT didn’t sound as good as this time - therefore aligning me more towards the Victor - with the caveat that there was more detail in the MIT.
You sure the Decca works well at 15k? Some say 33k, or 47k. But what about 1meg? You may be surprised.
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. Â