Hear my Cartridges....🎶

I posted about the Victor Z-1 in my first month at Audiokarma(look at the date in the post #8):

http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/the-best-moving-magnet-cartridge-opinions-please.10418/

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.

Lisrened 3 times to each alternating between the recordings.
Initial reaction was:
1. Palladian - Where did the band go?
2. Z1 - Where did the strings go?
The Palladian sounded very syrupy while the Z1 had better air and sou ded cleaner. 

OK....this is an interesting comparison 🧐
A current US$10,000 LOMC Cartridge (The Palladian) against a cheap vintage MM (Victor Z1) fitted with a Jico SAS stylus.

The Acoustical Systems Palladian is one of the finest current LOMC cartridges I've heard, beating out....in my system.....Lyra Helikon, Lyra Titan i, Lyra Atlas, Dynavector XV-1S, ZYX UNIverse and lots of others.

ACOUSTICAL SYSTEMS PALLADIAN
Titanium bush-hammered body with Micro-Line Stylus on Aluminium Cantilever.
Running directly into the Halcro DM10 Preamp/Phonostage.

VICTOR Z1/SAS
Next in line after the X1 in Victor's MM hierarchy, the Z1 is plentiful and cheap on the Japanese used cartridge market.
With a SAS stylus attached......its performance exceeds the Victor X1-IIE in my system.

That’s for sure.  Happy day after Thanksgiving!  

Frogman, life is short. 

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.

Frogman, there are so many variables that even when I hear a cartridge demo in an audio store, I am still at best only 50% confident (in other words, a crap shoot) as to what it’s going to sound like with my other components in my own listening environment.

I think you are kidding yoyrself.

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.  

Maybe it’s just me, but I find it to be oxymoronic to be asked to judge the performance of anolog equipment over a digital platform. 

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.

Henry, I haven´t tried a V15/III so far unfortunately but with a modern SAS stylus it would be greater that it originally was. This is not my experience but a friend´s who had the original III, as he wasn´t excited of its high register performance, likewise you discovered.

Can this `newborn´ III outperform the 500... as many audiophiles say the III is better than the IV and the V... Well not really, I´m afraid of. The Ultra series 500 w/ heavy metal body is a very special design and the 400 series also is a different design. And to remind all, to get the best out of MM carts one needs to have the right/most appropriate settings for capacitance and impedance values.
And in general, it´s all about how the music flows... this makes the very best cartridges when the music itself takes over, no listening fatigue you just can´t stop listening your records over and over again.

Listen with headphones on.... as the recording setup is identical for each cart, it is possible to hear differences. This does not mean that it will sound anything like that when you get it home! 

I think you are right about the sticker on the box Chakster......
I wonder if there is a difference in sound between the Boron tube and the Beryllium cantilever...🤔
My cartridge model preferences have overwhelmingly consisted of those with Beryllium cantilevers.
Because no-one can use Beryllium for their cantilevers
anymore.....modern cartridges just cannot compete IMHO and those who haven't heard vintage models WITH Beryllium.....simply have no idea what they're missing 😛 

Glad you like the Thread Harold.....I'll keep them coming as there are many revealing comparisons to be heard 🧐

Halcro, I would gladly see an Ultra 500 in your collection hopefully in some day soon and hear your thoughts about ...

My first Shure was an ML-140HE which impressed me.
Somewhat later I tried a NOS V15 Type III which I didn't think was better than the ML-140HE....
When I tried it with a Jico SAS stylus however........I was mightily impressed 🤯

No hint of `edginess´ and truly a more sophisticated HF presentation with more nuanced and yes a `warmer´ and if you like more `emotional´ (natural) sound. 

Totally agree...
So much so, that it is one of my standard recommendations for anyone thinking of trying vintage MM cartridges.
Because so many were made.......it is very easy to pick up a V15/III body for $200-300 and then add a SAS stylus.
This combination will see off many of the high-priced modern MCs on the market.
If you've heard this combination Harold.....do you think the Ultra 500 will be better....?

Regards
Henry

^^  Halcro. Yes indeed ! Now I would like to take this opportunity to introduce you the good old SHURE Ultra 500 cartridge ... Because that´s exactly what SHURE managed to achieve in their V15V-MR design and that goal culminating in the SHURE Ultra 500 in particular. No hint of `edginess´ and truly a more sophisticated HF presentation with more nuanced and yes a `warmer´ and if you like more `emotional´ (natural) sound. I discover that wonderful sound nearly thirty years ago : ) And sadly could not have managed to find a cartridge that could outperform my Ultra 500, in any aspect really, not to mention that HF area. I have AT-ART9 modern superb MC design, AT-ML180, Grace F-14/boron-MR, I had one special Dynavector... even that ASTATIC flag ship (Raul´s find) : ^)
And of course, the frequency response is linear with appropriate capacitance values, very low for the original beryllium cantilever and very high for modern SAS cantilever explained by David (dlaloum). And as David says, the Ultra sounds good everywhere, mediocre decks/arms and superlative TT compos/ designs `Ö´
Still, of course, the AT-ML180 is a superlative design with its miniature ML stylus tip giving a very low effective mass this is one of crucial things in the very finest cartridge designs, and this actually is the reason for the very best AT MM cartridge. Indeed this AT has a very neutral, very linear sound, and thus maybe even the most natural, for some people at least.

Halcro, I would gladly see an Ultra 500 in your collection hopefully in some day soon and hear your thoughts about ...

Very interesting thread indeed, keep them coming.

Best regards,

@halcro ,

I didn't consider this a contest either. My comment was made because of the fact that as humans, we can be swayed by lots of things, that may ultimately cause our perspective to be altered, not to mention, one could say, "Yeah since halcro said another was correct, of coarse you'll give the correct answer as well".

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.

I agree the tonal balance of the X1 is reminiscent of the London Decca Reference in its seductive midrange warmth...but the LDR has a narrower soundstage than the X1 and its 'highs' are not as shimmering or transparent.
I will do an LDR comparison on the FR-66S tonearm shortly.

I've had a few AT cartridges (AT-155Lc, AT-20SS, AT-150ANV, AT-13Ea, AT-33MONO, AT-ML180) and they do share a 'House Sound' IMO....
Whilst they may indeed have a neutral, linear frequency response...I have never liked their high-frequency 'edginess'.
With their Signet branding for the US market.....they tamed this aspect of their presentation and produced (to my ears) a warmer, more 'emotional' overall 'sound'.

@halcro well, there is a sticker on your box with updated information that your OCC version has a boron cantilever. I think the box is the same with the only difference that i have all info about Beryllium cantilever right on the box, not on the sticker (there is no stickers on my boxes). Also the OCC box with computer code is definitely from the 90s, not from the 80s like the LC-OFC box without any computer codes. 

Styli are interchangeable, but visually those cantilevers are the same, because they are both gold-plated. 

Maybe AT covered any information about Beryllium after this metal was found toxic and prohibited? Maybe this is why there is a sticker. Also we don't know what is under the sticker, probably different information. 

Anyway, this information is a proof. OCC comes with gold-plated Beryllium tapered cantilever, LC-OFC comes with Gold-Plated Boron Pipe cantilever.  

There might be a version of the  AT-ML180 OCC with Boron too. 

At the moment i have only one AT-ML180, my version is LC-OFC with Boron cantilever.  

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.

Interesting. Love the Albinoni Adagio. The X1 reminds me of the older Decca C4. 

Great shots as always Chakster.....👍
Fascinating information on the AT-ML180 OCC....but we have inadvertently uncovered a troubling anomaly as my ML180 OCC is described as having "gold-plated BORON cantilever" 🤪
Can you upload your Serial No which may tell us something....?
I can't find any Date on my package. Do you have one on your's?
My Package
My Stylus

Haha....
Sorry Slaw......but I didn't consider this a 'contest' 🤼‍♂️
I hoped....but wasn't convinced.....that the tiny, sometimes ephemeral differences between cartridges might be able to be discerned on the videos?
I was so excited when I read that @frogman had managed this feat....I couldn't reply soon enough....
Bear in mind, that each of us has his own preferences and biases when it comes to 'ideal sound' so that out of the 100 or more cartridges I have owned and the 40+ that I still do.....my favourites all have an underlying 'relationship' to my preferred tonal qualities.
The differences between them then....relate to their other abilities such as 'Soundstage', 'Transparency', 'Upper-Frequency Air and Extension', 'Depth and Control of the Lowest Bass Frequencies' and finally.....overall "Emotional Involvement' and 'Magic'....
These qualities are the most subtle and ephemeral and ultimately are the ones which elevate the 'favouritism' of one cartridge over another.

My hope was that some of these qualities would not be 'lost' in the videos so that they could be a viable form of demonstrating the sound qualities of vintage cartridges that Chakster and I have been promoting for years.
If these qualities can cross the 'divide' into the videos.....then I can demonstrate the fallacy of the 'MCs are better than MMs' debate and the greater fallacy.....'expensive' MCs are better than 'cheap' MCs.

At any rate.....being able to hear the sound of some of these cheap vintage MM cartridges, may convince those who might never have the chance....to 'take the plunge'....😎

Finally Slaw.....please DO listen and give me your thoughts.
I think they will be valuable....👍

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

@halcro ,

You gave it away too soon. I'm still going to listen.

That's amazing frogman.......
You absolutely nailed it.....👍
I didn't think those subtle qualities and differences would be able to be heard on the video.....and frankly.....I don't believe that even I can discern them when I play them on my iMac.
But you have described exactly what I am able to hear from my listening chair...🤗
The AT-ML180 I agree is probably "tonally the most realistic".....but both Victors just seem to give me more 'emotion' and 'magic'...
Some might say "more distortion".....🤪

For your uncanny hearing abilities......I present you with the inaugural 'Halcro Golden Ear Award'......👏👂

Regards
Henry

I must admit that your price suggestions are too optimistic :)
Victor X1 and AT-ML180 are way over $1k nowadays if they are in perfect condition.

While comparing cartridges on youtube is the last thing i wish to do, i have to say that i prefer X-1II over X-1 in my system (compared at least 3 samples of each model). Audio-Technica AT-ML180 OCC is unbeatable.

What i want to tell you @halcro is that my recent discovery was a shocking news for me!
Surprise. All you have to do is just to read carefully the description on the boxes of these two AT-ML180 versions.

1) AT-ML180 has Boron pipe cantilever, but only OFC version (not OCC)
this LC-OFC version is from the 80s

2) AT-ML180/OCC has Beryllium tapered cantilever!
this is the latest OCC version from the early 90s


Both cantilevers are gold-plated and looks the same, but they are made of different material. Both cartridges are amazing.

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.