Phono cartridge suggestions sought


Hi All,

 I am in the market for a new phono cartridge. I can run up to $1400 but would prefer not to if i can get the performance I want. 

I listen to predominantly Jazz on vinyl, though some rock, folk and classical also gets spun

I recently heard a Hana SL and Rega Apheta at a dealers—different decks, same room and system. Both sounded good although the Apheta was not as heavy sounding and at the same time sounded more “present”. I wasn’t really looking at the Apheta, but it was available to listen to. 

The room is accoustically live with lots of glass and hard surfaces but all sounds good. 

System: Naim Atom, Bryston TT, Parasound JC jr phono stage (so huge loading flexibility and gain up to the 60’s), Totem Acoustics Signature Ones, Transparent cables. Current cart: Denon 103r with 250 hours on it, so it is winding down. 

I have enjoyed the Denon. But wondering about that all elusive “more.”

on paper spec, nobody touches the Grados for channel separation, but not sure how essential a criterion that should be. Especially since I worked hard to tame some RFI from a nearby antenna and the Grados I have heard said are not well-shielded. 

Since my Totems only drop down to 45 Hz, I suppose absolute resolution on the low end could be sacrificed for other sonic goods. 

Ok, hive mind, what do you suggest?
dramatictenor
A vote for Sound Smith! I'd get whichever one of theirs you can afford, and enjoy knowing that it doesn't get any better (maybe equal, but not better).
I'm 71,

My cartridge/stylus comments are below, but consider them in the context of my aged attitude:.

Practical over esoteric; fine quality is good enough; chase great recordings, discover new artists, rather than tweaks.

I believe analog process records/reproduces overtones correctly, resulting in more involvement than digital even if analog involves more noise.

Similarly, that is why I prefer Tubes to SS. (Thus concentrate on efficient speakers to reduce power demands, which gets big, hot, expensive using tubes.

Primary, far and above anything else, is speaker matching and placement in any given listening space, very often unrealized.
..................................................

TT: mass mechanics/cartridge alignment most important, effects results more than cartridge/stylus 'quality'. Just yesterday, I re-checked my recent cartridge alignment, and found it ever so 'off', I re-did everything, listened, improvement far beyond any cartridge/stylus change I have used. That's after years of alignment experience. The mechanics are most important.

I have moved from elliptical to Micro-Line (both Shure and AT), back to Elliptical (current Shure M97xE). Always MM, never MC, avoiding adding the challenge of another amplification stage.  I've heard esoteric MM and MC, brought my own familiar LP's to friends, demos, showrooms. I'm sticking with M97xE.

After years of Thorens/SME/Microline: both my spare virgin Shure ML and AT ML sit unused in the drawer, I prefer the elliptical. 

I  found ML added a frequent need of deep groove cleaning that I found tedious, in the way of spontaneous listening sessions. Many times ML resulted in more noise than elliptical, especially AT without the brush.

I definitely want Shure's brush (anti-static, anti-skip, an additional level of soft touchdown). I also find the brush reduces the gunk on the stylus, reducing frequency of StyLast, thus consumption of the fluid is prolonged (not the reason, just the result).

Misalignment, aside from less than optimal results, is a cause of groove damage. IF Micro-Line is misaligned, my instinct tells me ML will do more damage to grooves than elliptical, and, if bottom groove damage has occurred, using elliptical slightly higher in the groove can produce more satisfying results. That's instinct, certainly not facts.





Elliot, Thanks for sharing your perspective’s. I spent a lot of time on alignment also. I was a chef in my first career, and precision of tools in there use is deeply ingrained in me. So I feel like that is handled. I have a Shure M97xe in “my fleet” as well, and have always enjoyed it’s “buttery” sonics, athough the sound is also more “dampedl than my Denon103r and other cartridges I have heard. It also didn’t have as high end extension or crispness—and I am old enough to be limited in that area, so that says something.

But apart from that, now that Shure is out of the game, what are you doing for replacement styluses?

As for the Stylast, I use it before every side. I have hd the current bottle three years, and I imagine the bottle will last at least another 5+, so I can’t worry about that.
Hey, here is an interesting interesting quote from an Art Dudley review of the Peachtree Nova 300:

After experiencing an excess of lightness from CDs and SACDs, I braced myself for similar results from LPs—and was relieved to hear no such thing: perhaps a simple consequence of the fact that the Shindo SPU pickup I was using has a proper, God-fearing spherical stylus, which doesn't lighten or brighten recordings as can other styli.

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/peachtree-audio-nova300-integrated-amplifier-page-2#54RZs8i2uEBK...

Given our discussion about stylus profiles in here, I thought it was a refreshing take to  hear what a great ear has to say about the advantages of a spherical stylis vs the disadvantage of other shapes. 
 now that Shure is out of the game, what are you doing for replacement styluses?

JICO SAS