Cartridge Opinions - Sorry


Yeah, another dumb "what's your opinion on these cartridges" thread. Back in the late 80's we had dealers where you could listen to the stuff.

So anyhow I have a Linn LP12 with Ittok arm and a 30 year old Audioquest B200L cartridge. I'm running it through the phono stage of a Jeff Rowland Coherence One into a Spectral DMA90 through a set of Kef R300's.

I prefer a little more laid back sound (err on the side of forgiving instead of fatiguing) but I like a lot of upper end detail, precise soundstaging, air, etc.

So far I'm considering an Ortofon Quintet S Black, Hana SL or a Benz wood - something at or below the $1k level.

I'd love to hear any opinions, suggestions, and experiences with those cartridges or others in the price range. I could possibly go higher if there is something out there that really shines for less than $1,500.

Thanks.


klooker
Dear @atmasphere  : "   I used to have a Graham 2.2. I tried using a Grado wood body cartridge in that arm and encountered something called the 'Grado dance' although this is not something that is a particular fault of Grados (which are a great cartridge) or for that matter the arm. This was simply because the arm mass in tandem with the suspension of the cartridge.........."

Any one that owns an unipivoted tonearm design has very low knowledge levels on the tonearm/cartridge overall issue and you are not an exception to that. Good that you are improving about.

All unipivots no matters mass  cartridge always " dance/jump " inside the grooves generating higher tracking distortion levels than non-unipivot tonearm designs.

Not only Triplanar but any gimball tonearm design handled that problem in better way but can't avoid it completely even if the resonance frequency between the tonearm and cartridge is in the 8hz/10hz-12hz " ideal " range and exist only one posibility to put that groove jumping out of the " equation " or at least at minimum.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
Any one that owns an unipivoted tonearm design has very low knowledge levels on the tonearm/cartridge overall issue and you are not an exception to that.
This sort of blanket statement is really problematic. The later Graham Phantom is a very decent unipivot- magnetically stabilized. I had gone from the SME5 to the Graham 2.2 because the latter worked with a larger range of cartridges, but the Grado was not one of them. If you had the right cartridge on it there was not 'dance/jump' at all. The Micro Benz did quite well on that arm. But the Triplanar as tracked any cartridge I've installed on it perfectly (which is to say no breakup and effortless no matter how heavy the groove was modulated), once I get the effective mass right.


The Micro Benze did indeed work fine on my Graham 2.2. So did the Benz Ruby. But then it sounded even better on the Origin Live Conqueror.  

Who knows how good they were tracking? No one does. Tracking is inferred from listening. So cut out the middleman: Go by how it sounds. Period. 
Ralph, I get it, I'm just saying that to me (a learning noob with analog) is fascinating how mechanics (including proper tracking) will provide 80% of the magic while electrical parameters the remaining 20% (using these values as an example).Now you guys are talking unipivot / gimbal, just realized my Technics uses a gimbal design


@atmasphere : it " dance " at microscopic grooves tracking levels, no matters what. magnets can't stabilize the unipivot designs, the tracking friction movements/forces are extremely high.

@millercarbon Origen Live designs are really good.

This link is a learning one for every one:

https://www.originlive.com/hi-fi/tonearm/renown-tonearm/

R.