Hear my Cartridges....🎶

Thanks for this experiment Halcro, great fun. It is still difficult for me to listen through the distortion of the laptop speakers and tonal nuances mostly get lost in translation, but I'll give it a go anyway.

I concentrated on listening to the rhythmic presentation, based on my impression that DD is usually prone to latch on to the attack, while BD more emphasizes the flow of the music. At least that is what I hear comparing my own DD table (Pioneer PL-70L II) and BD tables (Micro BL-91G and RX-1500S). I also tried to bring back from memory the experience with my previous BD table (TW Acoustic Raven GT SE with Black Knight battery power supply), which tended to sound slightly dark and subjectively slow paced. This could be a TW family character shared by Halcro's Raven AC.

All that said, I feel TT1 & 4 have the more tightly organized rhythmic presentation I associate with DD, while TT2 & 3 have a more relaxed and flowing presentation, so these would be the BD tables.

Would mr. Fremer take the challenge? The suspense is growing.....😆

Thanks for accepting the challenge Edgewear......
We now seem to have all bases covered 🤗
Almost......

• TT1 - DD with Glanz 610LX
• TT2 - BD with London Decca Reference
• TT3 - BD with AS Palladian
• TT4 - DD with Sony XL-88D

Congratulations Edgewear 👏🎉

All that said, I feel TT1 & 4 have the more tightly organized rhythmic presentation I associate with DD, while TT2 & 3 have a more relaxed and flowing presentation, so these would be the BD tables.

This is how I hear it 'Live'....
Your experiences with the Raven and Pioneer turntables possibly gave you the edge 😃

It would be interesting to hear what you all take away from this experiment? 🧐
Thanks for your 'bravery'.
No-one on YouTube had the guts to try it... 

Excellent, Edgewear!

In answer to Halcro’s question, my primary takeaway goes to our agreement about TT4 being DD. You describe the sound as “tightly organized rhythmic presentation” while I described it as “solid pitch stability” compared to TT3’s slight pitch waver. One can’t have great rhythm without rock solid pitch stability. It confirms my feeling that DD, in general, offers superior pitch stability; something that has been a struggle for me in setting up my belt drive turntables over the years. Perhaps time to jump ship.

One of the mysteries of this hobby is how the advantages AND disadvantages of the different technologies impact our perception of the music; sometimes in ways that are contrary to what would expect from a logical standpoint. Belt drive, as you point out, are known for highlighting “the flow” of the music. Yet, the flow of the music, from a musician’s perspective, is entirely dependent on great pitch stability. A conundrum.

As I wrote, due to the nature of the music there weren’t obvious clues re pitch stability in the Stravinsky examples. Yet, I associated what was for me the “bolder with more hf energy sound” of the belt drive TT2 with my expectations for DD. Knowing now the cartridges involved, it all makes sense. This is what I wrote in the previous MC/MM “test” re the Glanz cartridge (on TT1 in this test and cartridge B in the previous test):

**** Cartridge B requires (allows) that the listener “lean into” the music instead of it being pushed in the direction of the listener.

“A” seems to present a more generous soundstage and with larger individual images. “B” ‘s soundstage seems more compact with smaller individual images. ****

The Glanz, even on a DD (TT1) which I expected to provide a sound which was “bolder”, retained its more polite and “set back” sound. Pretty consistent observations, I would say. So this brings up again the often asked question: barring gross pitch stability issues in a TT’s performance what is most important, turntable or cartridge? Of course, when one is dealing with gear of this caliber, the deficiencies in any one sonic parameter are very small and the music does not suffer too terribly in any case. Thoughts?

Thanks, interesting and fun as always, Halcro.

Perhaps a better way of asking the question is:

When the playback equipment is of such high caliber, where (turntable or cartridge) does that extra bit of improvement bring one closer to the music?  I suppose it is, as always, a subjective call.  Does one react most positively to that extra iota of tonal truthfulness, or of rhythmic integrity?  Of course, then there is still the arm to contend with.  
To quote Vince in “Pulp Fiction”:

“Ain’t it cool?”  

Can also drive one crazy.  😱

It's actually quite amazing that the gestalt of the musical presentation remains intact even through such a mediocre device as - in my case - a laptop 'speaker'.

For me the Casino Royal comparison was fairly easy, probably because the music itself is rather slow paced and a bit wavery, which is accentuated even more by the presentation typical of BD. With the Stravinsky it was much harder as the music itself is very incisive and spikey, which to some extend hides the intrinsic flowing nature of BD. And this BD characteristic was perhaps further masked by the Decca London. While I haven't heard it myself, it shares the rhythmic articulation associated with 'direct couple' or cantileverless cartridges like Ikeda 9 Rex and Victor MC-L1000, which I'm very familiar with.

I don't necessarily think this should make you jump ship. For me the wavering aspect of BD should mostly be attributed to the use of a rubber belt. My old Micro RX1500 (with separated motor unit, stainless steel plateau, copper mat and brass stabilizer ring) uses the non compliant SF-1 kevlar belt. This is a massive improvement over a rubber belt and largely closes the gap with DD in terms of pitch stability, while retaining the somewhat more organic presentation of BD. In terms of rhythmic presentation is sits between the BL-91G with rubber belt and the Pioneer DD table.

So there's a middle ground that can offer the best of both worlds. Obviously this Micro is nowhere near state of the art, so you don't even need to spend a fortune to get there.