Great review. How do you think it compares to a Denon DL103 or DL103R? Or Goldring 1042?
19 responses Add your response
Externally, this cartridge appears to be an OEM version of the Sumiko Pearl, which is less expensive. The Andante E of yore also had, well, at least the same body, if not cantilever and stylus. It appears that Shelter are not actually making the cartridge.
It does appear that the 201 is similar to the Pearl. Then
my remarks should be considered a supplement to the other
review of 5-9 on the Pearl. . I still find it an outstanding cartridge. Some have called it bright. I believe "strong" might be a better word. Yes, I prefer
it to the DL103 and Goldring 1042, having owned the 103 and currently owning a 1042. If the character of this cartridge is too much for you, then turn the volume down. It really is a sleeper and would be a super bargain as a Pearl. As you can see from other cartridges I've owned and used, this is the bottom of the heap price wise. Read Ferrari's review of the Pearl. He expresses things much better than I.
While the Shelter may be a fine cartridge, I can't help but see a bit of "audiophile irony" here: the Shelter, which is probably a gussied up Sumiko Pearl (a $95 cartridge) which may, in fact, even be a gussied up version of an even cheaper cartridge being compared favorably to the Clearaudio Aurum Beta (a $500 cartridge) which is probably just a gussied up AT 95 (a $50 cartridge).
Anyone spot a cartridge trend here?
I did want to make it clear that I was not denigrating the cartridge, merely pointing out its lineage. I have heard neither the Pearl nor the 201. The Pearl has the same output, but also has a bonded elliptical stylus. I have no idea if there are, or are not, refinements made to the Shelter, such as a different cantilever material or stylus. In fact, using an existing generator may be the most cost effective way of going about this. After all, the difference in price is just $100.00 so, if there are any enhancements at all, that may well justify the price difference.
The Pearl has a .2 x .8 bonded elliptical stylus. The
201 has a .3 x .7 elliptical stylus. Peering closely
with the naked eye and a magnifying glass, it does appear
the 201 stylus pierces the stylus shaft which would normally qualify it as a "nude" elliptical. However, the
color on the back side is different than the stylus side,
which may mean adhesive was used even though the shaft was
pierced. Shelter's sheet does not say bonded or nude.
Obviously, stylus quality can vary considerably depending
on the supplier, the polish etc., so whether this difference accounts for the price differential, you decide.
There are other reasons the Shelter *might* justify the higher price. They may have taken a page out of Grado's book. It's my understanding that the whole Grado Prestige series is made on one production line. Grado then runs them through QA for frequency response, linearity, and trackability, and badges and prices them according to how well they perform. And they get a price range of $40 to $180 out of this "same" cartridge.
Plus, the difference in stylus dimensions indicates that the Shelter and Sumiko are not *exactly* the same.
Johnny B, close, but not exactly correct. The Grados do have, at least, different cantilevers, but they do select the better performing cartridge from a pair. In other words, the Gold is the better Silver, the Red is the better Blue, the Green is the better Black, but the Black is, in no way, the same as the Gold.
Oh, that's right. Their literature indicates different cantilevers, as in 3-piece or 4-piece. But is it relatively safe to assume that the cartridge body is the same? In the Ortofon OM Super line, the cartridge body remains the same while stylus selection expands the price range from $69 to $349.
And judging by stylus dimensions, the Sumiko Pearl and Shelter 201 have different stylii.
JohnnyB, yes I think that the motor is the same in all of the basic Grados, as it is with the Ortofon OM series. I think that Ortofon have carried this through to their new MM line the Red, Blue and Black.This makes a lot of sense to me, provided that the economy of scale is passed on to the consumer.
I have the Pearl and it is a modern cartridge. I measured coil resistance around 600ohm which qualifies it as a modern low inductance design. Traditional MM designs such as M97 and AT120 measure around 1.5KOhm (much higher inductance) which is why the Pearl (and the Shelter) responds up to 30khz and sounds faster to my ears than the Shure and Audio Technica. Sure the Sumiko has a slightly rolled top end, but it is not slow. The Pearl and Shelter cartridges are perfect for those who like the Grado sound but owns medium or high mass arms.
Regarding nude v. bonded tip, my experience is that it doesn't matter very much. Research has shown that it is the cantilever that is responsible for the majority of the cartridge's moving mass, not the tip.
Just changed out a very used Shure M97xe I've played since I bought my Music Hall MMF2.2. I didn't like the Music Hall Tracker it came with & had the Shure on-hand. The Shure made me fall in love with my vinyl again. Changing out the Shure for the Shelter was such a HUGE improvement, I'm rediscovering all my favorites again!!The improvement in bass & overall clarity is overwhelming!! Well worth its money!! The 201 almost makes me want to try its bigger MC brothers!!
I have both the Shelter 201 and the Pearl elliptical.The cartridge body and plastic molding for the stylus and cantilever assemblies appear pretty close to identical, minor marks on the plastic casting, aside. HOWEVER, auditioning the two in a system that is otherwise unchanged shows how profoundly different those stylus assemblies must be. CONTEXT: I run a DL103PRO, A DV20X2L , the Pearl, an AT95 Black (wrecked it)and now the 201 through a JELCO 750D damped , Canare or VDh arm leads, into a Perreaux phono stage or a Naim stageline 'S'( MC low only). At the moment the T/T is a Kenwood KD650 with a superb condition bearing. My 'test bed' is usually a LINN motor in an off-board housing, off board power supply, into a LINN sub-platter /bearing, custom platter, in a custom American dark oak plinth on 8Kg of stainless steel isolating pillars.
The Pearl was nice, but with a very retired mid range, a little too recessed in a well balanced system. Settings for the phono stage are: GAIN 40dB, shunt capacitance 27pF , 47K input impedance. The Shelter 201 is, unfortunately , light years ahead of everything except the DV20X2L ( must be set to 100 Ohm, 60 dB gain).
The presentation is much more reminiscent of a moving coil, with superb separation of instruments, depth of detail, and forward presence to it. There are changes to the tonality of things, even electronica, which far, far surpass the rightful expectations of a cartridge at the 2JUKI price. Mine was bought from 2JUKI on eBay, my 4th purchase from this guy.
Will demo on demand in Auckland, no problemo.
I just purchased a Shelter 201 cartridge and am having a bit of a challenge setting the VTA on my old Thorens TD15O MkII. I do not have any sophisticated tools for cartridge set up, but the TD150 cartridge head has easily adjustable VTA settings. With other cartridges like Grados I can align the bottom of the cartridge to be parallel to the record surface and the cartridge face at right angle to the surface as a starting point, then tweak from there till the sound locks in. The Shelter 201 as far as I can tell has few right angles, and I am having a harder time finding the general starting point for finer adjustment. If no one has any tricks for how to narrow the possible starting point for this cartridge, I will just brute force the process by checking through a number of settings to see what sounds best.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.