Collosalsound - this was an extremely enlightening article, and I thank you heartily for taking the time to write this all up. I have a decent digital set up and am starting to play around with vinyl because I have many records, from my college days and friends and relatives who no longer had use for them, all from before 1985 or so. I could never understand why reviewers asked what percentage of their collection sounded good with a given set up. Would it make sense to follow a different path and optimize for records of 1985 and before rather than go with the all purpose My Sonic Lab cartridge you recommend. How much better could the SQ be, at the same price but focused on the older records?
MM vs. MC: What Happens When People Jump Into MC Too Early?
MM vs. MC: What Happens When People Jump Into MC Too Early?
The decision to purchase an expensive moving-coil cartridge rarely happens immediately. Most music lovers arrive at that point only after spending some time with vinyl.
Perhaps they started with an entry-level MM cartridge, or they already own an affordable MC cartridge. Or perhaps they started with a carefully selected vintage MM cartridge, as I suggested in my article – The Best Vinyl Sound For $1000, and discovered just how much performance can be achieved without spending a fortune.
But after a year or two of listening, reading forums, watching reviews, and talking to other audiophiles, a question inevitably appears:
What am I missing?
What would happen if I installed one of those expensive MC cartridges that audiophiles praise so enthusiastically?
What about Lyra Delos, or some highly praised retipped vintage MC cartridge?
Before we go any further, it is worth mentioning another group of audiophiles—more experienced vinyl enthusiasts—the ones who have already spent several years with analog playback and dream of eventually building a serious turntable with two tonearms, just like the systems they admire on Instagram.
Whenever I asked people planning such systems what tonearms they intended to install, the answer was remarkably consistent:
“One light tonearm and one heavy tonearm.”
In my experience, both approaches lead to expensive detours.
The first mistake is trying to jump into the MC segment before you can afford a solution that really works.
The second is spending a fortune on a two-arm turntable without fully understanding what those tonearms are supposed to accomplish, rather than pursuing a more versatile path.
To explain these mistakes, we need to go back to the beginning.
Cartridges Evolved Together with Records
Phono cartridges did not develop in isolation. They evolved alongside the record itself.
Nobody would seriously consider playing a shellac 78 RPM record with a modern microline MC cartridge. Those records were designed for stylus profiles that, by modern standards, look almost like sewing needles. In many ways, the same principle applies throughout the history of vinyl playback.
As record manufacturing evolved, groove geometry changed. Grooves became narrower, cutting techniques became more sophisticated, and playback equipment became increasingly refined.
Simultaneously, stylus profiles grew more complex. Cantilevers became lighter and stiffer. Magnet structures became more advanced. Cartridge designers continuously searched for new ways to extract more information from the groove.
Many of the moving-coil cartridges that appeared during the 1970s and early 1980s were genuine advances over the moving-magnet designs of their era.
Evaluating those cartridges today, however, is difficult. Unlike vintage MM cartridges, many of which can still be restored to near-original condition simply by installing a modern replacement stylus, a moving-coil cartridge is a much more integrated device. The stylus assembly is not a user-replaceable component but part of the cartridge’s entire mechanical and electromagnetic structure.
As a result, original factory styli for most vintage MC cartridges are long gone.
Restoration typically requires retipping by a specialist, often using a completely different stylus profile, cantilever material, or suspension system than the original design. Sometimes the results are excellent. But what emerges from the process is no longer the same cartridge that left the factory decades ago.
However, cartridge technology did not stop in 1980.
Advances in magnet materials, stylus geometry, coil design, and manufacturing precision have continued for decades. As a result, with only a handful of exceptions, even many of the most celebrated vintage MC cartridges struggle to compete directly with the best modern designs.
What Happens When People Upgrade Too Soon?
What usually happens when people jump into the MC segment with only $1-2K and buy something like Lyra Delos or a similarly priced cartridge?
Some records immediately sound better.
This is especially true of later pressings, where groove geometry became narrower and more sophisticated. Suddenly there is more air, more detail, a deeper soundstage, and a stronger sense of separation between instruments.
The owner smiles and says:
“I knew it. MC really is better.”
Then something else happens.
He pulls out an older record—perhaps Grand Funk Railroad, Nazareth, or Led Zeppelin.
And the reaction becomes less enthusiastic.
The sound is detailed, but somehow less convincing. The music feels more analytical, less cohesive, less emotionally connected. Instead of hearing a performance, the listener begins hearing individual elements of the recording.
Many of the records that define the golden age of vinyl were recorded between the late 1960s and the mid-1980s. Their groove structure and cutting techniques differ substantially from later digitally mastered records, and while the fine stylus of many MC cartridges can extract more information from thin grooves than thicker MM styli, when it comes to the older records with wider grooves – less delicate MM cartridges often produce a more coherent and natural presentation. If you let me use an automobile analogy again, this is like driving a sports car on a highway and a 4x4 off-road.
The Two-Tonearm Solution
This duality brought many music lovers to the two-tonearm solution. Between 2015 and 2018, I built a dozen vinyl systems around exactly this concept. One tonearm carried a cartridge, such as a Shure V15 or an ADC XLM, for earlier records. The second initially carried an Audio-Technica AT33, but its tonal balance was surprisingly similar to the ADC XLM. To make the setup more interesting, I developed my own product, Denon Goliath - a modified Denon 103 that I extensively reworked with retipping and a custom wooden-body conversion. The result deserves a separate article.
It was through the Denon Goliath that I first rediscovered later recordings such as Iron Maiden albums from 1986–1988. For the first time, I heard how much information these records actually contained. Compared to the MM cartridges I had been using previously, it felt as though ten to fifteen percent of the information in the groove had not been retrieved.
These two-tonearm systems were remarkably versatile. They handled both older and newer records with equal confidence and provided an elegant solution to the problem. I used vintage Victor or Denon direct-drive motors and custom plinths to build those turntables, and for that period, they were a perfect audiophile product within a budget below $6000.
And yes – one tonearm on that type of player was light for high-compliance vintage MM cartridges, and the other was heavy for a low-compliance Denon.
Why is it a costly mistake to use the same solution today?
The economics now are very different. Many vintage motors have reached the end of their practical service life and require extensive restoration. A modern turntable capable of accommodating two tonearms, together with the required armboards and tonearms, can easily exceed $15,000–20,000 before you even start thinking about cartridges.
At the same time, today we have My Sonic Lab cartridges that combine very high resolution with a surprisingly natural and balanced presentation across a much wider range of records than was previously possible.
And this is the key point.
Today, buying a versatile My Sonic Lab cartridge and one good tonearm for it is a much smarter decision than a two-tonearm solution. Even the entry-level My Sonic Lab models can compete successfully with combinations that would previously have required two separate tonearms.
As a result, the traditional solution of maintaining separate cartridges for different eras of records becomes much harder to justify when working within a limited budget.
For listeners seeking a turntable capable of reproducing an entire record collection with equal confidence, the most sensible strategy today is often to aim directly for a My Sonic Lab cartridge and a single 12-inch tonearm with low-to-medium effective mass. In my practice, the Moerch DP8 12-inch red dot worked best, but common SME tonearms work perfectly well too, except for heavier models such as the 3012R or M2-12R.
A Quick Word About Lyra
No discussion of MC cartridges would be complete without mentioning Lyra.
On this website, you will find a separate review of the Lyra Delos, one of the most popular first MC cartridges. In that article, I explain why I rarely recommend it. However, that does not mean it is a bad cartridge. In fact, for many listeners it can be exactly the right choice.
Many entry-level and mid-level high-end systems suffer from a lack of overall transparency. This is often caused not by the cartridge itself, but by the system as a whole. Loudspeakers may have a high Effective Drive Mass, amplifiers may deliver insufficient current, and the entire system may sound slightly closed-in.
In such systems, the energetic and highly detailed character of a cartridge like the Lyra Delos can be extremely beneficial. The cartridge effectively cuts through the system’s overall lack of openness, creating more air, more apparent detail, and a greater sense of excitement.
This is precisely why opinions about Lyra cartridges are often so polarized.
One listener installs a Lyra and immediately falls in love. Another listener hears the same cartridge and finds it overly analytical or fatiguing. Both listeners may be correct. The difference is the system.
So, Should You Upgrade to MC?
My answer is yes, absolutely.
A properly chosen MC cartridge can absolutely deliver a meaningful improvement in analog playback.
The mistake was upgrading without sufficient funds and purchasing an MC cartridge that lacks versatility.
If your system is already highly transparent—sensitive loudspeakers, low Effective Drive Mass, sufficient amplifier current—I would suggest looking toward a cartridge no less than the My Sonic Lab Eminent EX or better, such as the My Sonic Lab Hyper Eminent.
If your system still lacks overall transparency, a cartridge such as the Lyra Kleos may be a good choice, but I recommend addressing the lack of transparency first and then moving to the My Sonic Lab Hyper Eminent anyway.
If your budget for an upgrade is less than $4K, which would allow you to afford Lyra Kleos or a My Sonic Lab Eminent Ex, I would not rush into MC cartridges at all.
Don’t forget that if your phonostage doesn’t properly support MC cartridges, you will need a SUP and a cable to connect, which adds at least $1-2K more.
A properly restored vintage MM cartridge, such as a Shure V15 or an ADC XLM, remains one of the smartest purchases in analog audio below the $4K threshold. More affordable MC cartridges improve certain aspects of reproduction while simultaneously sacrificing others. You gain something on one group of records and lose something on another, and the result is often not a breakthrough, but a compromise.
If your budget allows, skip the intermediate steps and move directly toward a truly versatile design such as the My Sonic Lab.
Does a two-tonarm solution make any sense today?
Oh, yes, but on a much higher level, where lies a very different world of pushing analog playback to the limit. In this game, the goal is no longer versatility.
The goal becomes specialization.
Coming back to the automobile analogy again – BMW X6 is excellent both on a highway and a moderate cross-country, but if you want to set lap records at a racetrack and compete in the Camel Trophy, you need two totally different cars – let’s say a Ferrari and a Defender.
Different cartridges and different tonearms are optimized for different records from different recording eras. This approach can extract the absolute maximum from the medium, but it also requires a completely different level of investment. The threshold begins at roughly $35K, and with the necessary infrastructure – step-up transformers and cabling – it can easily reach $ 45K–$50K. And in this game, the formula “one light-mass tonearm and one heavy tonearm” doesn’t always apply. Some of the best contemporary setups need two heavy tonearms because both cartridges, specialized for records from early and later eras, are low-compliance.
The core of this article is that choosing between MM and MC cartridges is not the real question.
The real question is whether you are optimizing your setup for budget, versatility, or specialization.
At the first level, the goal is straightforward: achieve the best possible sound within a comfortable budget. And vintage MM cartridges like the Shure V15, ADC XLM, and others with Jico styli outperform most existing low-priced MC cartridges, both contemporary and vintage.
The second level begins when the goal of achieving better sound meets a meaningful upgrade that works equally well across a wide range of records. Here's where My Sonic Lab cartridges stand out as one of the most compelling solutions available. If you already know you have no interest in building a $35,000-plus analog front end in the future and that extracting the absolute last few percent of performance from vinyl is not your goal, then a simpler, more universal approach makes perfect sense. In that case, I would focus on turntables that can accommodate a quality 12-inch tonearm but do not necessarily require multiple tonearms.
How Far Down the Rabbit Hole Do You Want to Go?
If, on the other hand, you believe that analog playback may become a long-term passion and that one day you may want to pursue the specialized approach discussed in this article, it may be wise to choose a turntable platform with greater long-term flexibility.
In that scenario, a single universal cartridge such as a My Sonic Lab can serve as an excellent starting point. Later, as priorities and experience evolve, the same turntable can become the foundation for a more specialized two- or even three-tonearm system.
The challenge is that the right answer depends not only on your budget, but also on your goals, your record collection, and how you plan to enjoy music in the years ahead.
If you would like to hear all the cartridges mentioned yourself rather than read about them, I encourage you to visit the REFERENCE VINYL RECORDINGS page.
Reference Vinyl Setup No. 1 in that collection was built around the very concept discussed in this article: a turntable with two specialized tonearms, one optimized for older records and the other for later pressings. Incidentally, that turntable used two heavy-mass tonearms, not the traditional “one light and one heavy” combination.
The Reference Track 1 and Reference Track 2 collections contain recordings made with a wide variety of cartridges, including vintage MC designs and modern cartridges from different price categories.
Well-known and relatively expensive MC cartridges occupy the last two positions. Yet despite their price and brand name, they are outperformed by cartridges ranked much higher—including a humble Shure V15 mounted on a very modest turntable. More importantly, that particular Shure was used in a stock configuration. It did not benefit from many of the upgrades I would normally recommend, such as a top-level JICO stylus with a boron cantilever, a wooden headshell, or mounting it on a 12-inch Moerch. Had that Shure received all those upgrades, it would have been higher in the list, closer to the top 5 positions occupied by the best modern MC carts.
I hope the information in this article—and the accompanying reference recordings—helps you make more informed decisions about your analog front end.
Paul Gerbert, Independent Audio Consultant
Helping audiophiles navigate an expensive and confusing hobby through smarter decisions and long-term planning.
Disclaimer: I don't sell My Sonic Lab cartridges, Lyra cartridges or any other gear mentioned in this article.
- ...
- 152 posts total
| Post removed |
Dear @arhgef If most of your records are from before 1985, there are actually several cartridges I personally prefer over My Sonic Lab for that specific purpose. Before I mention them, I should clarify what I mean by “prefer.” Over the years, my reference has not been other turntables, cartridges, or phono stages. My reference has always been analog master tape. Fortunately, I own a small collection of genuine analog tapes, and for roughly a dozen recordings I also have the corresponding original vinyl pressings. This gives me an opportunity to compare the playback chain against what is, in my view, the highest-quality source available for much of the music recorded before 1985. As a result, whenever I evaluate cartridges, phono stages, step-up transformers, turntables, tonearms, or any other part of the analog front end, my goal is to get the playback of the record as close as possible to the character of the master tape. Of course, no comparison is perfect. The same tape played through different systems and in different rooms will still sound somewhat different. But within a given system, I want the gap between the tape and the record to be as small as possible. For older recordings, particularly rock, jazz, and popular music from the 1960s through the early 1980s, four cartridges have consistently stood out to me. In the more affordable category, the first would be the ADC XLM. It works best in a very low-mass tonearm such as an SME Series III or a Moerch configured for low effective mass. Recent replacement styli may have somewhat lower compliance than the originals, so the arm matching may not be quite as critical as it once was, but I cannot say that with complete certainty. The second vintage MM cartridge would be the Victor X1 fitted with a modern replacement stylus. Unlike the ADC, it is much more forgiving of arm choice and works very well in medium-mass tonearms. Something as simple as a Victor X1 mounted on a Micro Seiki DD-8 with an MA-505 arm can deliver remarkably satisfying results. Compared with the ADC, it tends to produce a slightly more solid and controlled bass foundation while retaining much of the musical character that makes older records so enjoyable. Moving up the ladder, my preferred moving-coil choices would be Air Tight and the Ikeda 9GSS. The Air Tight performs exceptionally well in lower-mass arms such as a 12-inch Moerch or a Primary Control arm. The Ikeda 9GSS, on the other hand, is one of the few cartridges I have found that works beautifully in heavy arms while still preserving the qualities that make older recordings sound convincing and alive. I would specifically single out the 9GSS. Other Ikeda models such as the Kai or Sai certainly have their strengths, particularly with classical music, but in my experience they do not communicate classic rock recordings nearly as successfully as the 9GSS. One interesting pattern is that the relationship between the ADC and Victor X1 on one hand, and the Air Tight and Ikeda 9GSS on the other, is surprisingly similar. The MM cartridges capture much of the tonal balance and musical intent, while the MC cartridges take the same basic presentation significantly further. The moving-coil designs provide more air, more low-level information, greater articulation, and a stronger sense of energy and immediacy. In my comparisons, they move noticeably closer to the presentation of the master tape. The MM cartridges preserve much of the tonal character, but inevitably lose some resolution, openness, and dynamic expression. So if your collection consists primarily of pre-1985 records, I would not automatically assume that a modern all-purpose cartridge is necessarily the best destination. In many cases, choosing a cartridge that complements the character of those recordings can produce a more convincing and ultimately more enjoyable result. I should add an important qualification here. The Airtight and Ikeda 9GSS are not direct competitors to most of the My Sonic Lab models. They are considerably more expensive and, depending on the model, are priced closer to the top of the My Sonic Lab range. In absolute terms, I do think both cartridges are capable of a larger and more powerful presentation. They tend to sound more expansive, more energetic, and more physically convincing. My Sonic Lab cartridges are exceptionally accomplished and among the most universally successful cartridges I have heard. However, to my ears they introduce a slight degree of refinement and modernization to the presentation. The sound becomes a little cleaner, a little more polished, and perhaps a little more contemporary. Not everyone wants to spend Air Tight or Ikeda money, of course, and there are several more affordable MC cartridges that can deliver very satisfying results. One example would be the Audio-Technica AT33 series. Whether it is the PTG, SA, or another version, I generally find the family to be consistently good. In some respects the AT33 is actually more detailed than cartridges such as the Victor X1. On the other hand, with older rock recordings it does not quite deliver the same sense of density, weight, and cohesion that I hear from the Victor. Another cartridge that has impressed me is the Hana Umami Blue. At roughly the $2,000 level, I think it offers a very attractive balance of performance and value. As for the Denon 103 and 103R, I know they have a loyal following and I completely understand why. They are historically important cartridges and can sound extremely good in the right setup. My own feelings about them are somewhat mixed. I hear many admirable qualities: energy, dynamics, tonal richness, and excellent musical drive. Yet I have never quite heard from them the sense of analog atmosphere and immersion that I associate with the very best vinyl playback. In fact, if my goal today were simply to build a reasonably priced turntable system dedicated to older records, I might very well choose a Victor X1 and not worry about moving-coil cartridges at all. BTW you may listen hi-res DSD tracks representing all mentioned cartridges by this link: https://colossalsound.pro/stati/reference-vinyl-recordings-—-what-are-we-actually-striving-for.html
|
My time on the Gon has enabled me to observe that many Threads become a cacophony of singular ideas, without unanimous agreement. The type of unanimous agreement expected to be seen if a question is raised, such as an inquiry about what the fundamental requirement is to replay a Vinyl Source or a CD Source. I am a contributor to Threads and do my bit to add to the cacophony of info presented within a Thread. Where I struggle is to be able to encourage an individual to experience what I am using. As the system is pretty much a custom design of a single produced audio device, designed/built by others from scratch, from the Math through to the end functioning model. Then there is an audio item produced as a custom design in quite limited numbers and for some items of equipment evolved as a design across a period of time. This type of design for some items is an already available item, which has undergone a complete rethink and application for it. Somewhere in the past is where it all started, and I commence my story of an audio journey near to that 'somewhere'. As a fledgling system builder and TT user in the 80's when the Vinyl Source was being discarded by many, my inquisitive nature about end sound failed to discover a CD end sound that was able to steer me away from a Vinyl Source. Numerous Vinyl vs CD experiences and straight CD experiences resulted where CD failed to become an attraction. In the 90's I moved on from a well-known brand BD TT, and entered the world of the Idler Drive, which really stirred my inquisitive juices; a whole new world was discovered, mechanical interfaces to control generated noise. With an alternative hobby of low-powered air rifle target shooting already having been participated in for nearly 10 years. A mind for mechanical interfaces was already in place, with the keystone placed. Non-metal-on-metal contact was a daily mantra; low coefficient of friction was the regular buzzword put out there. Imagine learning that this applied to TT's, especially my current at the time TT I was using; imagine individuals who had not competitively used low-powered air rifles were using terminology I was fully understanding. Bloody Marvellous, I was thinking. I no longer needed Mr Airgun Tuner Extraordinary; I needed Mr Extraordinary; I know what you need when it comes to an ID TT. Time is too far gone to state whether we shared in a lengthy exchange, but the work was done and recognised when put into service for the value it had added to the end sound. Remaining in the 90's, using an improved ID TT, led to curiosity about improved auxiliaries to support a Cartridge, which resulted in my becoming interested in electronics used as a Phonostage, especially standalone Phon's and not integrated within an Amp. My attending audio events of different types enabled me to meet non-commercial exhibitors and learn about designs not seen in the mainstream, which resulted in my first custom build being produced, which was a SS Phon'. This Phon' was a bespoke version of a Phon' offered as a kit build. As stated, I will say the mechanical change coupled to the electronic change is definitely my 'somewhere'. The ship had left the port. Within the 90's being through, I was in discussion with the worldly wise I had met, about mechanical interfaces, electronic interfaces; I even ended up with TT Plinth produced from Granite that was a weighty Nine Stone and a SME IV Tonearm. The latter 90s for me saw the concept of the MC Cartridge start to manifest; I can recall my first purchase being before the 00's. My first MC Cartridge purchase was on a Train Station Platform at a well-known British coastal town, which was for me an approx' 200-mile round trip. Roll on nearly 20-ish years and the same person met at the Cartridge sale, was a guest of honour at an audio event I was at; the person now has their own Web Magazine. As the event moved on, I got my chance to have a chat and told my story of our first meeting. The shared info proved intriguing; I bought a review MC Cartridge. It was explained that CD's had floored Vinyl sales and Cartridges were not selling in the capacity they were five years previous. Manufacturers of Cartridges were doing anything to get Cartridges seen in the media. Magazines were offered Cart's through a Manufacturer or Main Distributor, at substantially reduced cost to retail; a 70ish% discount was offered by a selection of Brands. (I don't think this Marketing Strategy will ever be seen again) Audio events duting the 90's had led me to SUT's and MC / MM Inputs on a phon'. Tonearms being seen with MC Cartridges mounted were also part of the experiences being had. I am confident when I say I have heard the TDP design SUT's and a TDP MC Cartridge in the 90's. Audionote, Linn, Loricraft, Mitchell, Pink Triangle, Roksan, SME will also have been experienced and I am sure MC Cartridges will have been in use on all. TDP also introduced me to ESL Speakers and I was done on the spot, while listening to Pink Floyd 'Pulse' Master Tape Recordings. Ownership of ESLs was not too far forward from this experience's profound effect. Tonearm investigations for partnering with MC Cart's, along with MC / MM Input Phon' was a 'biggy'; to the point, selections were made, and purchases realised. Custom-built from scratch Pre and Power Valve Amps followed, and this evolved into the custom-built monoblock 845's, which were readied for use a few years into the 00's. The 00's was where real change occurred; I was to wean myself from being a lone in room audio user, to become much more interested in audio events that were not solely populated by commercial exhibitors. I started making a beeline to these types of organised events and was to at a later time to become an exhibitor myself. Forums with a hive of audio-minded individuals became discoverable, and as these established, social arrangements became a normal extension of participation. Within a social event, much was being learnt by myself about the end sound able to be produced. Such learning has been the moulding of myself in relation to the hobby of using audio equipment today. In parallel with the above, during the 80's, 90's, 00's, there has been plenty of time listening to live music. My interest in audio has always been an extension of what was once a passion to experience live music. The 90's and 00's have been a period where extensive investigation commenced. Individuals being met were in some cases, fully adept at audio design. There was little "Talking the Talk". "Walking the Walk was totally evident. Proof of work produced was on display to be demoed. Comparison to show the disciplines in use elevated the impression made of end sound produced. My system in use today is clearly outlined in other Threads; what is important is not so much how I am impressed with the end sound that is capable of being created from my system. What matters is that I am an individual very well looked after by a selection of very savvy audio-minded individuals. Friendships developed; invites are shared; resulting on having accompanied them to audio events and being a guest invited to their homes. In relation to met individuals multiple years past, and having there support to help me with producing my audio system. I am having audio devices still built for me and received very recently and to be received very soon. The audio experience for me is a variable composition; it is always fundamentally about the music collection and the options on the design for the replays that can be generated. It can be all audio, i.e, new equipment is being discussed and produced. Within this stratification, that can be distinct as layers or metamorphic. What really, really matters is that the stratification has another not so commonly talked about ingredient, which is friendship. A thread of friendship is woven through my audio experience, to the point that audio as a hobby will be quite poor without it. I will state as I have on many an occasion on the Gon' " When it comes to really enjoying a musical encounter, especially one that is readily available. There is none that competes, when I sit with my Wife, and Alexia is being used, calling up tracks that go back to our teen years and earlier." Bliss, Bliss, Bliss. I can't do Math as a guide; I keep it very personal and trust the senses I was given when developing in my mother's womb. I entertain myself with the music produced through replays, no different to my entertaining myself sat in front of a screen watching filmed content. In relation to audio as a hobby and means of being entertained, I only do the end sound presented in front of me. My own evaluation is what matters. More equipment that I can suggest is demoed to me, has been demoed to me. I know my own personal preferences for an end sound. I decide for my own requirements where an end sound is perceived as. Attractive and wanted to be maintained. Attractive and noted for the impression made, through to an end sound being perceived as Repulsive. It was using the end sound as the guidance to discover a personal preference that was the measure that encouraged me to create a CD Source nearly 30 years on from being repulsed by demoed CD's produced end sounds. The design for CD replays today is for me to have parity in generating equal enjoyment alongside a Vinyl Source. I can only strongly suggest putting in footwork and being proactive in creating encounters for being demoed equipment and the end sound produced. 'Math' for myself does not create the information that enables end sound evaluation. Both Math and Talk, in my view, serve the purpose of being useful to create a shortlist for demos to be received. |
- 152 posts total