Why is HFW so biased against vintage cartridges?

[Marco]

Hi Adam,

Well, no-one tipped me the wink about this thread, Marco, (black marks, David!) but I stumbled on it by chance and it finally inspired me to register with AOS, so that must be something!

LOL. I’m glad it did! You spend enough time on pfm and Wigwam, so I’m pleased you’ve now added AOS to your forum posting portfolio

So then, what’s all this nonsense about me hating vintage cartridges?

It was a tongue-in-cheek remark based on the 'jibe' you made about the M3D on pfm. I get the feeling that there is (almost) a resentment of cartridges such as the 103 and M3D by the likes of Noel and you, perhaps due to your engineering background and your predilection to the notion that 'whatever measures better/is made of 'superior' materials' *is* better. It’s just how you guys often come across, that’s all. You can now prove me wrong, or not! (LOL).

Put simply, I think you’re overstating the case a little – let me explain. Yes, I do indeed have a passion for all things audio, and a strong and nerdy obsession with old gear, especially of a vinyl-related nature. The thing is, though, I am an engineer and do realise that both from a design and construction point of view, and a sonic performance one, technology has moved on somewhat.

Yes, but you see the mistake you seem to make is to automatically presume that just because things have "moved on", that they’re unquestionably better. I can think of numerous examples in hi-fi where that’s most certainly not the case. Sometimes things are just 'right' from the beginning, and it’s very difficult to improve on them.

As you are a reader of Hi-Fi World, you will know that my system consists of both old and new items – I neither dismiss new kit as being rubbish because things were done better in the old days, but nor do I dismiss anything old as outdated and superceded until I have had a chance to try it out.

That’s the right attitude and one I wholly endorse myself. The difference with me though, I would politely suggest, is that when something’s old I’ll go to the nth degree to find the right partnering ancillaries in which to optimise its performance before arriving at a definitive conclusion. With respect, I don’t believe that you’ve done this with either the DL-103 or M3D, as others have also pointed out.

Consider that my Ferrograph S1 loudspeakers were born in the 1970s when, let’s face it, there were a lot of average and quite a few downright rubbish loudspeaker designs on the market. I happen to think that the Ferrographs are one of the better ones and I thoroughly enjoy what they do , but I can assure you that if my lottery numbers ever come up, they won’t be staying in my system for much longer, as I have a list of new and shiny models I would like to replace them with!

That’s fair enough. But I’d wager that if you did so you’d miss some of the 'magic' of the Ferrographs, and what you like about their way of music-making, in the process. Properly 'sorted' classic loudspeaker designs (and indeed 'classic' anything, for that matter) for me undoubtedly have a certain 'magic' about their musical presentation that’s missing in modern designs. It’s to do with voicing - and it’s a trade-off (tone and timbre vs. 'clarity' and detail retrieval) that in most circumstances I’m not willing to make. You may be able to do so though, and that’s entirely your prerogative.

"New and shiny", for me, in hi-fi does not automatically mean better. It can in certain circumstances, but it is far from being guaranteed. In fact, I would go as far to say that out with of computer audio and some areas of digital, the *best* of classic hi-fi outperforms the *best* of modern hi-fi, certainly in the areas that I value in music. Some of the speakers being made today, and being passed as 'musical' are, quite frankly, shocking. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of old tat, too, but when you find a genuine gem, it's often very hard to beat.

As to these infernal cartridges, actually I know both of them, having owned more than one example of each. In fact a recently acquired DL103 is sat very near me right now, as I have bought a turntable with an arm that appears to have the effective mass of the Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge, so I suspect the two will work well together! I have spent time with the DL103 before as, when I first joined HFW nearly three years ago, its resurgence had just started, and I was parked in front of it by Noel for a good few days to give my opinion on it.

Which arm is it? I’d be interested to know. I’ll certainly be interested to know your thoughts when you get around to listening to the combination. It would make an intriguing comparison to the review of the 103SA that David’s going to do. What you should bear in mind though is that, after the conical stylus, the highly resonant plastic body shell of the 103 is what 'holds it back' most. Therefore, until you hear a 103 without its plastic body shell, or one with one of the 'fancy' shells, and you use it with a properly matched SUT, IMO, you won’t ever hear what it’s truly capable of.

That opinion of mine is the same then as it is now, namely that the DL103 is a fine and pleasant sounding cartridge. The trouble is, so is an Audio Technica AT110E, but this is £70 cheaper and, frankly, from my main cartridge I don’t want to be coming up with words like “fine” or “pleasant”; I want “amazing”, “wow” and “brilliant” and that is what I get with the Audio Technica AT-OC9MLII that I use at the moment.

LOL. I’m not quite sure what you mean by "pleasant", but that’s not how I’d describe the sound I get with the 103. In my system, the 103SA is precisely all the things you say about your OC-9. However, I could neither live with an OC-9 as my full-time cartridge or that horrid 'toppy' sounding abomination, the AT110E, simply because of its peaky treble emphasis. I respect what the OC-9 does in a technical sense, but I find its way of music-making rather matter-of-fact and clinical, in comparison to what I’m used to. Basically, it lacks 'soul'.

I confess that I have not heard the DL103SA or any of the other ‘pimped’ versions but I cannot help but feel that they will all be limited by the 40 year old technology around which they are based – magnets have grown stronger, wire has become higher quality and thinner and stylus profiles have become more complex and better suited to their task since the DL103 first came into life.

You see, there’s that 'engineer’s head' of yours, influencing things again Theories are all good and well in hi-fi, but the proof of the pudding is always in the listening! Have a listen to the 103SA in David’s 'SL-1210 MP' when it’s at World towers, and just maybe, your preconceptions will be unjustified…

Equally, the Shure M3D is a fine performer but still not something I would ever become unduly excited about. One of mine sounded very fine in a Garrard 4HF and, no I have never fitted one into my Jelco and added loads of pennies to the headshell – maybe I’ll be shocked by its brilliance if I buy one and do this, who knows?!

Why not try it as part of a feature in a forthcoming magazine? With the Jelco, you wouldn’t need loads of pennies, just a high-mass NOS detachable headshell, which is a much better and more elegant solution. There are plenty around if you look.

Ultimately, we all have different tastes and I will always defend your right to enjoy the M3D and the DL103. Personally, however, they are not my cup of tea and I think it’s fair to say I am in the majority here, be that rightly or wrongly!

We probably do have different tastes, and that’s fine. If the M3D and DL-103 definitely aren’t your cup of tea, then who am I to argue? However, I’d contend that you’ve not heard either cartridge properly (as I’ve outlined), and certainly neither have the vast majority of 'naysayers' you mention, so such statistics unfortunately mean very little.

Consequently, to recommend to magazine readers or other forum users a cartridge that I would never use myself seems a little self-defeating, don’t you think?

I see what you mean, but I don't really agree. The whole point I would’ve thought is to recommend equipment (or whatever) to your readers, based on the information they’ve given, that best fits their needs. I do this all the time here when advising people, or answering their questions.

It’s not just about what you like, is it? How many of your readers share your specific tastes?

There are many things that I recommend people to use on AOS which I wouldn’t necessary use myself, but which from experience I’m confident would fit the bill - and indeed this is often proven to be the case when they try whatever I recommend and later report how happy they are with the results. This, in my opinion, is what’s often lacking in the advice given in the letters section of your magazine: variety in recommendations offered, which are tailored to meet a reader's specific needs.

When cartridges are recommended, it’s always bloody Audio-Technica, Ortofon or Goldring that’s mentioned – there appears to be an obsession with cartridges from these particular manufacturers, and a seemingly complete lack of lateral thinking (and 'left-field' choices) shown/offered by the assembled cognoscenti of HFW. Not everyone likes or wants the sonic presentation you guys value, or indeed have the systems to compliment it.

Therefore, IMO, more lateral thinking is needed when offering advice to your readers. Oh, and if Noel mentions the word "modern" again in his reviews, or whatever (it’s always 'modern this, modern that'), I’ll… Ahem... You get the message!

Anyway, sorry for the epic post, but I felt that it was important to clear up a few points. I do hope you continue to grace us with your presence, as I always enjoy reading your articles in the magazine and what you write on other forums, even if sometimes I don’t agree with it!

Marco.

[Marco]

I think you'll find that the issue with Alnico magents is that the corresponding components around them have to be designed differently to factor in their magnetic field, which is inherently weaker than that of a modern ferrite or neodymium magnet.

What this means is lighter cones and smaller motor systems that have a greatly different damping effect to a modern driver with a higher moving mass, hence giving rise to the difference in sound quality. There is no reason a cartridge would be any different - a weaker magnet will require more turns of wire for the same output which gives a higher coil inductance and rolls the top end off.

I'm not technically minded, Adam, so unfortunately none of that means anything to me.

Whatever it is, though, I'm convinced that Alnico magnets contribute to a sound with equipment or speakers which I find as being more musically 'faithful' than that offered by their modern counterparts. If possible, it would be interesting to test this theory by listening to two pairs of otherwise identical speakers (ones using Alnicos and ones not) and comparing how they sound.

Also, there is one other point to be made regarding the modern cartridges' rising treble response that needs to be considered, namely that of loading. I know that Noel generally tests cartidges with no capacitive loading, in order to give a level playing field and reference point for comparison, so to speak, but the addition of this will alter the cartridge's frequency response and sound. I would wager very few of us have zero capacitive loading on our MCs.

Sure, but all that matters in the 'real world', so to speak, is the results people obtain in their systems at home. I've used many modern cartridges, OC-9s, Lyras, etc, with a variety of (variable loading) phono stages, and although you can tailor the sound to degree, their inherently 'bright'/forward presentation is integral to their design, and comes mainly from the stylus type chosen, and other things, during the voicing process of the designer/ manufacturer.

To use Noel's terminology, there is a "modern" sound (forward and overtly detailed/superficially 'impressive') which is almost 'expected' of cartridges nowadays in order to make them competitive, because seemingly, this is what most people want. Therefore, manufacturers simply offer the path of least resistance and supply the demand. I'm not saying that this is what always happens, but commercial reality dictates that it often applies.

It's not just cartridges it happens with either, but speakers, amps, CDPs - everything. We've almost completely moved away from valuing tone and timbre with most of today's hi-fi equipment, in my opinion, to the detriment of genuinely musical sounding hi-fi reproduction.

Marco.

[griffo104]

I don't get this "Lyra's are bright thing". My system certainly isn't bright and swapping my Dorian for carts for other carts I still don't get this, it has very good treble detail which makes for a very enjoyable sound.

As mentioned previously on another thread. I listen to a friend's system quite rugluarly and he has an OL arm with a Argo and again I don't find this bright. After a recent bake off where we compared decks and phonos what it showed me was haw far better the OL/Argo Whest was at getting detail of the record and the producing bass, much like Tony's comments in his excellent post, compared the other cart (Shelter/SUt/P10) combo).

For me there's no doubt which one was closer to neutral. I find it hard when Marco talks about neutrality when he has cart which to my ears is coloured, and in case of the DL103 has obvious distorion problems at inner grooves.

I'm not denying that the one setup was enjoyable but switching back to the other highlighted what was on the record much more.

As mentioned, it one persons taste.

I'll go back to Tony's post. Having gone to many classical conerts I decided there was no way a hifi can reproduce that (ok may be 5% can as mentione in Tony's thread) but certainly not ones within my price, so therefore I stopped looking for neutrality and transparency and concentrated on finding a system I enjoy. And that so far has always had a Lyra cart at the very front end.

[Marco]

Hi Griffo,

I don't get this "Lyra's are bright thing".

It depends what you mean by "bright" - it's all subjective and also system-dependant. My system is extremely revealing (it's been deliberately set-up this way), so any nasty treble emphasis (or other sonic traits) of cartridges and/or equipment is ruthlessly revealed.

The Argo(i) I had was most certainly unpleasantly forward sounding in my system compared to the DL-103R I was using at the time. The Dorian you use may well have a more even tonal response. I'm not alone in my thoughts about the Argo, as I've heard Rob Holt (a Lyra fan) say the same thing, and others too. I believe for that reason he moved to an AT-33PTG, which is in my experience a much more even-handed performer.

I've owned a few different Lyra cartridges in the past, and experience suggests that they're voiced with the emphasis more on detail retrieval and 'clarity' than the tone and timbre I value - it's all personal taste

I find it hard when Marco talks about neutrality when he has cart which to my ears is coloured, and in case of the DL103 has obvious distorion problems at inner grooves.

It's all about our relevant experiences and our definition of "neutrality".

Remember, you haven't heard a 103SA, so please bear that in mind when you refer to 'his cartridge' , or (arguably) a stock 103 optimised in the right system. Also, this oft-mentioned "groove distortion" is simply not a real issue (by which I mean the effect is largely ameliorated) when any 103 has been optimised in the right system and set-up properly.

...so therefore I stopped looking for neutrality and transparency and concentrated on finding a system I enjoy.

Same here - that's the most important thing, as the other things you mentioned aren't really attainable. However, our respective 'journeys' to achieve that goal have been very different

Marco.

[anthonyTD]

Another technology that is seeing a resurgence is field coil (electro) magnets. The best of the breed seems to be able to give a sound quality like no other.

My Io Ltd. sounds very different to an Io Gold, which is basically the same thing but with AlNiCo magnets rather than the electromagnet of the Ltd. The rest of the cartridge is the same - body, stylus, cantilever, etc. And yet it sounds like it has significantly lower distortion. It's not an issue of field strength - the Ltd. has a lower field strength. Interestingly, it's very sensitive to the quality of the supply - moving to a battery was an enormous upgrade.

but it's only a magnet, right?

I also have some RCA field coil compression drivers on the way, once they have been rebuilt. Really looking forward to those.

my dad was a service engineer from the 1950's onwards and repaired everything from televisions to toasters and he always said [even to this day] that the sound from mains energised, or field coil electo magnet speakers was hard to beat!
A...

[griffo104]

Hearing two deck setups next to each other (and swapping the SUT/phono) I find it quite amazing how the Lyra Argo (not the i version but a new ESC retip so paraglide or whatever they call it ) opens up the sound and lets the detail flood out.

Reading Tony's description of bass is very much what the Argo did to the sound, even more so when the SUt/P10 was removed and replaced with the solid state Whest.

As you say it down to personal taste and one's own perception. It merely highlighted why I enjoy the Lyra way so much.

For met this sound isn't bright. It's just bring much more detail to the game for which some people , not saying you here by the way, may mistake this for brightness.

I've heard the 103 in a couple of setups now and I'm still amazed that people like it, sorry but I just don't get why you would go to such lengths to get something like the 103 performing optimally when there's carts that can perform optimally so much easier.

I've just been looking at new carts, the Dorian has a fair few hours on now, and I'd love to get another one but in fancying a change I've ended up with the Benz Micro carts on my radar, very different to the Lyras but they have such a wonderful easy flow to the much that I'm finding them very tempting.

For me the sound you describe is what a lot of people refer to as the 'analogue sound' when they respond to me knowing I'm in to vinyl but I don't see that anymore. Carts like the Lyras has been able to take detail and show it to the listener and bring it with a clarity I haven't heard before at that price. It remnds of some of the good things CD does but still brings that organic feel to the music that makes so many of us love vinyl.

It's all good fun , and leads to much music listening.

[Marco]

My Io Ltd. sounds very different to an Io Gold, which is basically the same thing but with AlNiCo magnets rather than the electromagnet of the Ltd. The rest of the cartridge is the same - body, stylus, cantilever, etc. And yet it sounds like it has significantly lower distortion. It's not an issue of field strength - the Ltd. has a lower field strength. Interestingly, it's very sensitive to the quality of the supply - moving to a battery was an enormous upgrade.

Pete,

Maybe I'm being thick, but it's unclear to me from the above which one has the Alnicos, and also which one you consider as being superior. Could you please clarify?

Ta!

Marco.

[i_should_coco]

Pete,

Maybe I'm being thick, but it's unclear to me from the above which one has the Alnicos, and also which one you consider as being superior. Could you please clarify?

Ta!

Marco.

The Ltd. has the electromagnets....

[Marco]

Griffo,

Hearing two deck setups next to each other (and swapping the SUT/phono) I find it quite amazing how the Lyra Argo (not the i version but a new ESC retip so paraglide or whatever they call it ) opens up the sound and lets the detail flood out.

I think the sort of language you use to describe what you like is probably the key. Maybe you're just more of a detail freak than me? I'd trade (absolute) detail retrieval in cartridges every time for realistic tone and timbre, with voices and instruments having what I consider as 'proper body' to them, and not the anaemic sounding presentation I hear from most modern cartridges in comparison to SPUs, 103s, M3Ds, when done well

I've heard the 103 in a couple of setups now and I'm still amazed that people like it, sorry but I just don't get why you would go to such lengths to get something like the 103 performing optimally when there's carts that can perform optimally so much easier.

LOL. I'm not interested in 'easy'! I'll do whatever it takes to get the sound I'm after!! As I've said many times before (and hopefully one day it will sink in ) the reason why the 103 needs so much 'pampering' to get right is because it's an old design living in a modern world - a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. You need to place it as closely as possible in its 'original world' to hear it as the manufacturer intended. One day when you hear it thus, chez-moi or somewhere else, you'll hopefully 'get' what I'm on about.

For me the sound you describe is what a lot of people refer to as the 'analogue sound' when they respond to me knowing I'm in to vinyl but I don't see that anymore. Carts like the Lyras has been able to take detail and show it to the listener and bring it with a clarity I haven't heard before at that price. It remnds of some of the good things CD does but still brings that organic feel to the music that makes so many of us love vinyl.

There are those words raising their heads again!

I like vinyl to sound like vinyl and CD to sound like CD.

Marco.

[Mr. C]

Pete,
I suspect going from the psu to the batteries the most noticeable difference was the greatly reduced noise floor and sheer musicality increase Pete
How long do you get before the you notice a drop off in the sound due to the diminishing current from the batteries Pete?
I have heard one recently and was intrigued