|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.213.153.169
In Reply to: RE: And let's not forget the phonostage posted by morricab on December 31, 2016 at 03:39:22
I bought an AT150ANV on the basis of that shootout and have never really warmed up to it. I like the Ortofon 2M Black better, and I like the Cadenza Black better yet, and I like the Winfeld the best of all that I own. So that shootout is questionable to me. You might recall that Mikey forgot about balancing out the levels too. Methinks the AT150ANV must have been louder than the others.
Follow Ups:
I'm not a fan of the voicing of the AT MMs. I have a recent 150MLX which shares the same specification as the ANV (but without the sapphire pipe) and have tried it many times but still finding myself going away from it. For high output MMs, I still prefer the V15VMR or the Stanton 881 or CS100.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Anthony,
Your tastes and mine are clearly similar. I ,too, have a V15Vxmr that I like a lot and a Stanton 881 that I like a lot. Haven't heard the CS100, though. And as I have already opined, the AT150ANV has been a disappointment.
Bill
Yes, it would appear so - I dare say we also share the same curiousity in hearing what different cartridges sound like hence we both seem to have quite a large selection!!
I would say that the 881 has a slightly "warmer" sound to it compared to the CS100. The CS100 on the other hand has a very "fast" and clear sound that borders on the slightly cool side of neutral, but it is nevertheless very transparent. It is not too different to the V15VMR with a JICO SAS tip. However, none of the high output MMs can touch the low impedance design for soundstage realism and neutrality to me. I think Walter Stanton must have been very frustrated that popular opinion in the Audio press focussed on a belief that MCs sounded good by virtue of the transducer principle rather than the engineering related aspects and this negatively impacted on sales and the LZS bodies disappeared too soon.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
If all it takes is playing your music a decibel or two louder, we can save ourselves a whole lot of money on cartridges. As for me, I don't think volume level should make any difference between a nine thousand dollar cartridge and a nine hundred dollar cartridge. I think this comparison is proof that ultra expensive high-end components are total bullshit. But, to each his own! YMMV, etc.
Best regards,
John Elison
I do share your sentiments on his John , well until recently when i had the opportunity to listen to a really high dollar analog rig ( 150K +) the difference is in the refinement not in the bells and whistle, Much darker back ground from the CD silent needle to groove , no timbre change with increased volume and a level of refinement so easily noticeable its surreal....
Manny ,
my 2C take on this , TT/Arm / phonostage , with phono stage being the most important then Cartridge to match arm , TT combo . Arm quality and adjustability is everything with cartridges , the setup is everything in hearing Any cartridge , many high dollar analog rigs fail to impress due to poor tonearm setup..
Phono cartridges , all of them have their own house sound , very rare to find anyone involved in analog with one cartridge , some of us may have "settled " on a particular Brand after trying many others , mostly this settling comes from our maturing fixed system and not from one being better than the other , recessed sounding speakers will require a more forward or bright sounding cartridge for eg , selecting "your" one cartridge to purchase could turn out more difficult than you think , take up Bills offer , you will learn alot from the comparisons , take your table too if allowed ...
Regards
Where did Manny go ... ?
In my opinion, the ultra expensive high-end is all about ego and status. It has nothing to do with sound quality.
You say you've listened to a $150k+ analog front end. Well, so have I! I've listened to several in that price range and I even made hi-res digital recordings of a Rockport Sirius III with van den Hul Colibri cartridge and darTZeel phono preamp. I still have those recordings and I don't think they necessarily sound any better than my own $20,000 analog front-end.
Therefore, in my opinion, it all depends on what we want to believe we hear and how much value we place on the differences we want to believe we hear. As for me, there is no turntable, cartridge and phono stage worth more than $20,000 based on sound quality alone. But, that's just my opinion based on comparing my own equipment to other much more expensive playback systems. That's not to say I haven't heard a vinyl front-end that sounds better to me than my own. I have, but it didn't cost more than $20,000.
I've been making hi-res digital recordings of vinyl since I bought my first DAT recorder in 1991 and I fully understand and appreciate how accurate hi-res digital can be in capturing the sound of vinyl. Therefore, I have no doubt that Michael Fremer's needle drops in his comparison test of nine cartridges are accurate and representative of the actual sound quality of those cartridges including his own ultra expensive vinyl front-end. Of course, your opinion may differ from mine, but it's not because I don't have direct experience with other ultra expensive vinyl front-ends.
To each his own! YMMV, etc, etc.
Thanks,
John Elison
Regarding MF's 9-way shootout, one would have thought that if the mantra that "source is king" applies, regardless of the expense/cheapness of the downstream ancillaries used, then the Caliburn/Anna combination needledrop would have been an automatic winner, idiosyncracies of the respondents systems notwithstanding.
In other words, "quality will out". The fact that it didn't in this case is perplexing (for MF at least...) ;^)
Regarding the OP's question it's often been said that MM or MC, cheap or expensive, it matters little provided the cart is mounted on a first-class, well set up, platform, (admittedly with a commensurate phono stage) which is why you'll often see cheap classic Denon's etc performing in ridiculously expensive tonearms.
Interestingly, ultra high end MC carts are still available as med-high output (needless to say they've covered the bases by having low output variants of the same cartridge for hardy souls who enjoy the quest for 20K phono stages ;^)
Hi John,
Within limits (that are subjective and not defined) I think your point is quite valid. We tend to judge components subjectively and our standard of comparison tends to be other components. Does A sound better, or B sound better? That type of thing. We ask ourselves questions like this rather than does A sound like the original, or does B sound more like the original? Of course we don't have access to the original in most cases. The two guys who actually compared the sound of cartridges to the sound of the masters that were made to cut the discs in the first place were Doug Sax and Gordon Holt. They both preferred MM cartridges. Sax liked the Stanton 681 series, and Holt liked the Shure V15 series. On the other hand, different cartridges do sound different from each other. But we should not delude ourselves by claiming too much for our choices. I still own and enjoy a V15-Vmr mounted on an SME Series III arm. But is it total bull shit to also own and enjoy newer more expensive cartridges? I dunno. Like you said, YRMV.
Well, I plan to buy another MM cartridge. I'm waiting for the new line of Audio Technica cartridge to become available. The last MM cartridge I owned was the Shure V15VxMR and I didn't like it as much as any of my low-output moving coils. I'm hoping the new line of AT cartridges will impress me.
With regard to comparisons, you're right that most of us don't have the master tape to allow cartridge comparisons and vinyl comparisons to the source from which they were cut. We can only make judgements as to whether this cartridge sounds better than that cartridge. Still, it's fun to compare.
Best regards,
John Elison
John,
I have that AT150ANV that I would be happy to loan to you for evaluation. Interestingly enough I never liked it all that much, but love my Shure V15VxMR. I also have a Stanton 881 that still impresses me. Another very highly regarded MM is the Goldring 1042 (and related 1012), which is still in production. I have not heard them, but a lot of ink has been spilled praising the Soundsmith line. I never really liked the B&O cartridges, though, and that is the design that inspired the Soundsmiths. On the other hand, you seem very satisfied with your AT MC and there is nothing wrong with them at all. I have a much less expensive AT33 Mono ANV and it is an extremely satisfactory cartridge. Let me know if you want me to send the AT150ANV to you.
Bill
Hi Bill,
I plan to buy one of the new Audio Technica MM cartridges as soon as I can find out where to buy them. I'm rather partial to aluminum cantilevers and it seems all the new ones have aluminum cantilevers. I think I might feel the same as you about the AT150ANV, but I appreciate the offer. If you intend to sell it, you should probably keep it as new as possible. Therefore, I'll pass on borrowing it.
Thanks again,
John Elison
I am with you on tapered aluminum cantilevers. Many of the cartridges that I prefer have them. No intention of selling the AT150ANV, hadn't given any thought to it. The only audio component I have sold in perhaps the past 35 years has been my KAB modified SL1200Mk2. The new SL 1200GAE is getting a lot of use and I may wind up deciding to sell my Prime too. VPI is promising a mod for the 3D arm and I would like to give that a try before deciding. Also, after all the effort invested in getting my Prime to sound it's best, it would be a shame to give it up. If you change your mind on trying the AT150ANV the offer is open.
I wish you hadn't sold your KAB SL-1200 Mk2. It would have been interesting to compare the Mk2 to the GAE. I own a KAB SL-1200 Mk2 and I think it sounds very good.
Best regards,
John Elison
Oh I compared the two extensively. My MK2 had the following KAB modifications: Arm damping both internal and external, Cardas wiring, external PSU, record clamp. It sounded very good and I liked it a lot. The GAE simply sounds better. The difference I mostly attribute to the arm. A brighter more open sound. Better delineation of detail. More air, better bass definition - rosen on the bow stuff. All of this was noticeable, but certainly it was not a great difference. At the same time, the things that I admired in the MK2 were retained in the GAE. The ergonomics are superb, easy to set up, change cartridges, cue, all these things make both TTs a delight to use. In terms of the value factor the GAE cost $4k, the G costs something around $2700 (which has the magnesium arm), a clean MK2 with KAB mods something less than $1500 tops. Is it worth the difference? That is a tough call. I think the G version is for a person with audiophile sensibilities. But look at it another way. My Prime cost $4K but then I added an Eagle and Roadrunner (thanks to you and thanks again), a periphery ring, HRX pulley and extra belts, Counterintuitive, lots of futzing around because the pivot to spindle distance was out of spec etc. and lo and behold it is a $6k combination. The G or even the GAE is a no-brainer in this comparison.Bill
Edits: 01/09/17
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: