Michael Fremer's Cartridge Comparison

[TBone]

I have zero faith in needle drops from 'vinyl->digital' relating to useful truths in gear decisions.

Mike, I think you have it wrong!!!

Perhaps your "zero faith" perspective is based on your JE challenge?

Well, IMO, if that's the case, that particular exercise was a prime example of ALL YOU folks not being able to see the forest from the trees ... based on pre-concieved expectations, the entire "challenge" became a silly "win" loss" exercise. It was sad to read!

When done correctly, needle drops can be a fine evaluation tool to screen/gauge carts. Therefore, I consider it a very useful endeavor, especially in a world where real life cartridge listening opportunities are becoming increasing more difficult to obtain.

AFAIC, it's about time reviewers started using digital technology to share info as a tool to help readers screen/evaluate ... certainly beats reading a detached newest-model cart "superior" by default crap ... so prevalent theses days.

tb1

 

[TBone]

edit:deleted duplicate post

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike, I think you have it wrong!!!

Perhaps your "zero faith" perspective is based on your JE challenge?

Well, IMO, if that's the case, that particular exercise was a prime example of ALL YOU folks not being able to see the forest from the trees ... based on pre-concieved expectations, the entire "challenge" became a silly "win" loss" exercise. It was sad to read!

When done correctly, needle drops can be a fine evaluation tool to screen/gauge carts. Therefore, I consider it a very useful endeavor, especially in a world where real life cartridge listening opportunities are becoming increasing more difficult to obtain.

AFAIC, it's about time reviewers started using digital technology to share info as a tool to help readers screen/evaluate ... certainly beats reading a detached newest-model cart "superior" by default crap ... so prevalent theses days.

tb1

my perspective is based on 3 issues.

first; I have zero need for digital copies of anything. i'll always play the original of anything when I want to listen.

second; I've had pro audio guys in my room making hi-rez 'needle-drops' off my tt's and I always prefer the original. and my opinion is that the missing difference between the copies and the original is significant. so I don't see it is useful for my personal decision making. I've not had any experiences which conflict with this view. I don't see listening to a bunch of digital files of various cartridges as something I want to do.

third; I have better things to do with my time.

as far as the JE challenge, i'm not going there. JE did a big-time flip on his written perspective compared to what he heard when he visited me. when he did that I lost any desire to discuss what happened.

 

[microstrip]

(...)
I've made and heard enough needle-drops (w/blind test picks) over the years using various equipment to confirm that accurate 16/44 captures (and playback) are possible .... esp using capable/transparent digital gear. That said, making a very high quality needle-drop is just as much of a synergistic process as putting together a complete system ... not nearly as easy as it may first appear.

If I was Continuum, I'd be more than a little concerned (perhaps even embarrassed) that it didn't stand out like a sore thumb.

tb1

Tbone,

I fail to understand how Continuum or any analog brand can be concerned with needle-drop comparisons. People who invests in this level of performance of analog playback will surely have compared their analog systems with 16/44 digital and have made their minds on the capabilities and limitations of each media.

I also can not understand the faith some people have in amateur (as far as I know Fremer does not go beyond this grade) needle drops keeping the "magic" of LPs. Many CDs are obtained from excellent quality master tapes and unfortunately most of the time they systematically sound inferior to the LPs. What is the "magic" of a needle drop?

 

[TBone]

my perspective is based on 2 issues.

first; I have zero need for digital copies of anything. i'll always play the original of anything when I want to listen.

second; I've had pro audio guys in my room making hi-rez 'needle-drops' off my tt's and I always prefer the original. and my opinion is that the missing difference between the copies and the original is significant. so I don't see it is useful for my personal decision making.

well, let's consider the rest of the "real" world shall we ... in which most people can't have all the best carts delivered straight to our door.

1) consider if possible ... let's say the copy is "as good" as the original, or close enough not to be "significant". You could help preserve the original and share the original "goodness" within other systems ... never mid the fact that you can now archive it to digital mediums.

2) Perhaps "significant" is a matter of perspective because although I've heard that occurrence happen often, I've also heard the opposite.

Mike, what "significant" attributes (dynamic range, dimensional qualities, tonality, frequency extension characteristics) are "significantly" changed during recording? This strikes me as especially ironic, considering all the recent "pros" claiming how "accurate" hi-rez is at capturing "mastertape" quality.

Perhaps you should be asking your "pro" guys why they can't lessen the "significance" using the best ripping gear ... considering I can take a 16/44 drop, play it in a foreign system (w/ good digital) and have it compare well/favorably against the incumbent hi-end (very expensive) turntable.

tb1

 

[Bruce B]

second; I've had pro audio guys in my room making hi-rez 'needle-drops' off my tt's and I always prefer the original. and my opinion is that the missing difference between the copies and the original is significant. so I don't see it is useful for my personal decision making. .

Mike, were we using the Dartzeel pre? Can't remember....

 

[TBone]

Tbone,

I fail to understand how Continuum or any analog brand can be concerned with needle-drop comparisons. People who invests in this level of performance of analog playback will surely have compared their analog systems with 16/44 digital and have made their minds on the capabilities and limitations of each media.

As silly as this sounds, this is not about comparing 16/44 digital as a format to a turntable. It's about comparing a 16/44 copy of your turntable with the Turntable itself, using the 16/44 format (or any digital format for that matter). That may sound crazy (in respect to 16/44), considering in theory you're still comparing 16/44 directly to the turntable, but in practice, it often doesn't work out that way. Look, I once believed that 16/44 copies could never tell the tale of a good tt, that it would always sound like "CD" ...I was wrong.

I also can not understand the faith some people have in amateur (as far as I know Fremer does not go beyond this grade) needle drops keeping the "magic" of LPs. Many CDs are obtained from excellent quality master tapes and unfortunately most of the time they systematically sound inferior to the LPs. What is the "magic" of a needle drop?

Not always true. I have certain CDs that sound better or at the very least, identical to the matching LP. In many a case, the mastering was done originally within the 16 bit digital domain, later converted to analog/LP. I've made drops of these examples, in which it's near impossible to decipher the difference between the LP, the CD, and the drop. The all sound identical, and if you think about it, they should.

The "magic" you ask ... well, let me provide an example ... I recently "dropped" some original Queen LPs that sound vastly superior to anything I've heard (Queen) with ANY remaster in ANY format. These are old LPs I've had in my possession for decades, and I wish to archive 'em. I took the copies to an old friend recently, who owns a very expensive and well refined system/digital rig ... and magically ... all the special attributes that made these LP originals so special (they really do sound amazing) were shared/heard, via 16/44 digital, in a completely different environment.

tb1

 

[rockitman]

what "significant" attributes (dynamic range, dimensional qualities, tonality, frequency extension characteristics) are "significantly" changed during recording? This strikes me as especially ironic, considering all the recent "pros" claiming how "accurate" hi-rez is at capturing "mastertape" quality.


tb1

Are you saying you can't tell the difference between a vinyl pressing of an analog master tape versus a digital copy of the same tape ? If so, then what are you worried about ? get the digital approximation.

 

[TBone]

Are you saying you can't tell the difference between a vinyl pressing of an analog master tape versus a digital copy of the same tape ? If so, then what are you worried about ? get the digital approximation.

Well not exactly ... and you're missing the point, because it took an exercise like mine above, to make that realization.

tb1

 

[microstrip]

(...)


Not always true. I have certain CDs that sound better or at the very least, identical to the matching LP. In many a case, the mastering was done originally within the 16 bit digital domain, later converted to analog/LP. I've made drops of these examples, in which it's near impossible to decipher the difference between the LP, the CD, and the drop. The all sound identical, and if you think about it, they should.

The "magic" you ask ... well, let me provide an example ... I recently "dropped" some original Queen LPs that sound vastly superior to anything I've heard (Queen) with ANY remaster in ANY format. These are old LPs I've had in my possession for decades, and I wish to archive 'em. I took the copies to an old friend recently, who owns a very expensive and well refined system/digital rig ... and magically ... all the special attributes that made these LP originals so special (they really do sound amazing) were shared/heard, via 16/44 digital, in a completely different environment.

tb1

Well, if the mastering of the LP was carried in the 16 bit digital domain, I would not be astonished if the CD sounds near identical to the LP. Your test just says how good is your turntable. But can you nominate a few quality recordings, where the master was analog, in which the CD sounds identical to the LP?

IMHO the test you describe only tells that the original mastering or even the quality of the master tape used for the LP was a much better quality than any other. Did you compare the LP directly with the needle drop in your friend's system?

Anyway I would love to get my hands on a needle drop file of the Sheffield labs Harry James king James direct cut.

 

[TBone]

Well, if the mastering of the LP was carried in the 16 bit digital domain, I would not be astonished if the CD sounds near identical to the LP. Your test just says how good is your turntable. But can you nominate a few quality recordings, where the master was analog, in which the CD sounds identical to the LP?

Remember, like EVERY format, 16 bit domain digital masters represent a moving target ... most commercial mainstream CD remasters were inferior as you stated, and to that end, the sound or "redbook" was mostly described. Consider the few 16 bit CD that made the "audiophile" grade ... such as Famous Blue Raincoat, Trinity Sessions, Cafe Blue. They were released on LP and/or SACD, and to my ears, they didn't represent the improvement promised via the hype, esp. compared to the best digital 16/44 CD versions.

Analog, yes I have a few. I have a remastered CD of DP Machine Head (perhaps the greatest R&R album ever made, considering recording technique, location, musicians, mastering quality, and of course, music) that is spectacular, but that said, I never did have an in good shape original, although I just purchase a 200g LP set that might tilt my opinion once again. Barry Daiment masters, to name a few .... his LZ3 on CD bettered my LP (although I've not compared it to my 200g Classic) and his Bob Marley masters are awesome examples of 16/44 under-rated quality.

What I'm saying is that many audiophiles consider 16/44 a poor transcription medium, when in fact it has been represented as such based on so many bad practices/processes/sound. In fact, it's proven good enough that - usually - the difference between CD and any other medium - is mastering quality.

I think this is par for the course with all digital mediums ... hell, I can count on many hands the number of truly inferior SACDs (if you think the Rolling Stones catalog was sonically and $ justified on SACD, listen to 'em on my system) I've heard compared to CD & LP counterparts. I've said it many times before, usually to dead ears, but Hi-Rez digital does not win by default alone, it does NOT guarantee superior recordings, even thou some in the biz would like us to believe just that.

IMHO the test you describe only tells that the original mastering or even the quality of the master tape used for the LP was a much better quality than any other.

Yes, but by doing so, it tells you that 16/44 can pass that high a quality signal.

Did you compare the LP directly with the needle drop in your friend's system?

Nope, didn't have too. My table is now (hasn't always been) more refined and sonically superior to his (expensive US made TT) ... easily proven thru his superior digital system using any well mastered software.

Anyway I would love to get my hands on a needle drop file of the Sheffield labs Harry James king James direct cut.

Sorry, can't help you there ...

tb1

 

[Pepe57]

I can' t open the different files ith my Mac.
In any case it seems to me that MF makes a little mistake when he says that all 9 cartridges except the Grado and the Sumiko are Moving Magnet.
as i think that the Nagaoka MP300 is a Moving Permalloy, so it is part of the moving iron family (like Grado) and both could be also considered
moving magnet.
But, in the same way Grado was defined, to better center de definition, i believe that Moving Permalloy should be th better one or at least, moving iron.