BEST TONEARM CABLE PURIST VENUSTUS GRAHAM IC 70

Neil, I wanted to make one clarification concerning the Aesthetix Io phono stage. The ARC PH2 and BAT VK-P10 are balanced phono stages from input to output. I had always read the Io's INPUT is not balanced; the input signal is ultimately converted to balanced on the input stage and then balanced from then on.

I used a DMM to confirm the above. The Io has XLR and RCA connectors on the input. With the RCA ICs into the Io, the DMM confirmed that the signal-return line is indeed grounded. It is easy to see this with the L & R returns measuring zero resistance relative to each other. The two phases could have been lifted from ground with the use of a separate ground line but the Io does not support this.

I then plugged in the SB's XLRs into the Io and the measurement indicated each minus phase was grounded. An easy confirmation on the XLR's pins of the Io's chassis showed this was indeed not due to the SB cable. So yes, the Io grounds the cartridge's return signal for each channel rather than floating the cartridge above ground which would result in the cartridge acting as a "balanced" or complimentary device.

I'm not sure why the Io was designed this way, but in the final analysis, I'm currently not running my cartridge in a truly balanced manner. There is no benefit to use a tonearm cable terminated with XLR cables into the Io. But perhaps with a unit like the BAT VK-P10 which also has XLR and RCA inputs, but with the XLRs being truly balanced, maybe the SB would outperform or be closer to the RCA terminated Venustas ICs.....just a thought.

The proof is in the pudding as the Io far exceeds the musical performance of the very good PH2 and VK-P10 that I had before; there is much more going on than processing the cartridge as a balanced device but I have to believe it would be beneficial.

John

John, that's interesting. Mark Levinson, in their highly acclaimed 32 and 320s phono stages does something similar. If you go to their website and open the pdf owner's manual for the optional phonostage cards, it talks about how/why they achieve a "balanced" input circuit for the cartridge, even though the inputs are RCA.

My guess is it's a way of achieving lower noise phono amplification, even if you have, for instance, dedicated tonearm cables that terminate with RCAs only.

Nsgarch,well we had the comparison yesterday.Yes the Venustas had a darker,more silken presentation.However the IC-70 had a more dynamic presentation,with fuller bass.All at first blush.

The arm was the Graham 2.2.What we did(three experienced audiophiles)was,first compare both cables with exact arm/cartridge parameters.Here,it was surprisingly close,with The Venustas being a bit smoother and refined,with a deeper stage.However the IC-70 had stronger bass and dynamics,with a wider stage.Yet two of us felt the Venustas was bringing out a bit more high freq detail,and smoother too.At this point a riot almost broke out,as my other pal(the most qualified of us all)was adamantly pushing for re-voicing to each cables strenghts.This was VERY time consuming.He won!

At this point,my friend Sid,a very experienced 'phile,asked if I would go through the process again(a pain in the butt,btw)but to see if the arm/cart parameters could be slightly re-voiced for each cables personality.This proved quite intriguing,as there was a definite arm/cart voicing for each cable(go figure).

The final result yielded a blacker background(I think)and enhanced depth,for the Venustas,with a slightly smoother high end and gorgeous high freq decay.The IC-70 still is more dynamic,in this particular set-up(my friend's),with a wider,almost explosive stage presentation.

Truthfully,I think there is a system dependant aspect to this,and am really at an impass,as to whether it was really all that big a deal.Even with the differences,which were clearly obvious,it was easy to voice the arm/cart parameters,slightly,to close the gap.This is my delemma,as I have gotten really good at this,yet don't like to rationalize,if something can be made better.

I have to really do some careful pondering,and maybe bring my own records to my friend's house,to quantify if it is worth spending the extra dough.Though I loved the Venustas,the IC-70 is NO slouch.Yet I cannot get away from the fact that I never heard such STUNNING high freq decay in my friend's system.

One final note(sorry for the length)--We had a 90 degree connector added to the arm side of the Venustas,to compensate for the required angle needed to properly connect into the Cosmos table(I have a Cosmos too).This turned out to be sourced from Cardas,and though superb,it almost required a pliers to seperate it from the arm.Also,due to the "pin" connections in the arm,the ninety degree(right angle) connectors did NOT allow the cabling to go straight down,as does the IC-70(which it should).I'm concerned that if I were to go Venustas,this could affect my table's suspension.Thought I would mention this.

Anyway,as this hobby is quite cerebral,I'm forced to think on all these matters,before making any changes.Also,I hate using my brain,too much!

Thanks for all your valuable thoughts,and any correspondence,on this matter,is always welcome.

Speedy, I have a couple questions and one comment.

The questions:

Were the Purist and the Graham cables both broken in? Same amount? >100 hours (Cardas test record makes this easy)

Were you using a separate phono preamp? If "yes" then were you using each phono cables' matching ICs (Purist or Graham respectively) between the phono preamp and the preamp?

Comment: At the small voltages we're talking about, inserting that additional rt. angle DIN in the signal chain would be a definite "no no", certainly for any apples-to-apples comparison. (Venustas are available w/ straight DIN plugs BTW)

As for "arm/cartridge parameters" and "re-voicing" them to match the cables -- well you can probably guress I take a dim view of that ;~)) As far as I'm concerned, you set your arm, cartridge, SRA, and load as optimally as you possibly know how, using any phono cable, perhaps even a "disinterested" third brand! Then leave it alone and run the comparison. Otherwise, you'll start "foolin' around" in order to hear what you think you should hear, and wind up in la la land, results-wise!

Of all the things I mentioned above necessary to design a fair and useful experiment, probably the biggest hassle is providing well broken-in specimens. That takes a bit of pre-planning, but is essential to making meaningful comparisons.

In my case, I bought my Venustas already broken in, and compared them only to the vdH silver hybrid that SME supplies w/ the SME V. That experiment only took about 3 minutes!

I have an extremely neutral and very revealing system. If the Venustas were any more "dynamic" top to bottom, it might actually result in listener fatigue. So it would be interesting to hear a (broken in) Graham, Hovland or Silver Breeze sometime to see if they are in fact bright(er). I guess the Cardas Golden Reference has gone out of favor for being too warm and schmaltzy -- but I wouldn't know, that's just what I hear ;~))

Nsgarsh,yes it was broken in.Also,the first comparison was with no changes,for voicing.Also,it was Jim Aud who added the right angle connector,so I assume he knew what he was doing.Do you still feel that I would benefit by not having this connection path?I could probably get away with the straight one,but is it a technically better way to go?And,why didn't Purist Audio recommend my pal NOT get the ninety degree connection,if it was not as effective?

You know I trust in your comments,so any afterthoughts would be appreciated.

Thanks.