Natural Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
It is!
Lot's of fine Holst and other English composers on Argo and Lyrita. Great labels.
Argo ZRG 5495 - I try for the oval labels,
Lyrita SRCS 34
Lyrita SRCS 56
Lyrita SRCS 47
Lyrita SRCS 109 - not so unobtanium as in the HP rave days.
I am still getting used to owning tube gear, and the joys of biasing and replacing tubes. I ordered five complete sets of matched tubes for my phono and preamp, and three sets for the amps from Lamm about six months ago. Below is a worm's eye view of the left chanel. I also just installed my old Colibri XPP (plastic, platinum) on my back arm. A good friend and I compared the XPP to my Colibri Grand Cru, both on identical arms, yesterday while making final adjustments to the former. The two cartridges sound slightly different, but the resemblance is clear. My friend said that both sound extremely natural, meaning believable and convincing, though the tone and emphasis was very slightly different with each cartridge.
We listened to Frans Helmerson playing Crumb's Sonata for Solo Cello on BIS LP-65 Stereo along with some other recordings. We both remarked that we did not have a preference, or rather appreciated the differences. It was as though there were two great cellists playing two different instruments, but both equally engaging. The XPP was a bit more direct and energetic with a bolder sound, while the Grand Cru sounded just a tad more relaxed, a bit sweeter and more nuanced with the string harmonics and wood tone. The instrument was also a bit further back in the stage. I thought the GC was slightly more resolving, but if not heard back to back, just seconds apart, it would have been quite difficult to describe any meaningful differences.
I listened to more music today with the new tubes in the amps. My impressions of the two cartridges remains the same. The older one is just slightly less nuanced but really engaging. There is a solidity to bass and brass and drums, more impact and weight. The newer cartridge is more nuanced with a slightly more articulate leading edge on cymbals, better separation between instruments, more string texture and piano decay. It may also be slightly more extended. Voices are very close.
EDIT: For Tima, here are some more specifics about the cello sound: With both cartridges, the wood cello body sounded very resonant and hollow. The weight was slightly more with the XPP, but the woodiness and and hollowness was more defined with the GC. It was more rich and colorful with the GC. The pizzicato was quicker with the XPP emphasizing the leading edge slightly more, while there was more tone and vibration with the GC. It was as thought the fingers were softer with the GC, quicker and stappier with the XPP. Bowing was more solid with the XPP but the GC has more string texture and detail. The decay was good with both, but the GC seemed a bit longer. Scale was appropriate with both having lots of energy but no defined edge. The XPP was a bit more upright and demanding attention, while the GC was more relaxed with more flow. These differences were subtle, but noticeable, and these differences were consistent with other acoustic music. EDIT
I do not know if I could choose one over the other. Perhaps I will play more classical and choir with the GC and more jazz/rock with the XPP. This is one reason I am really beginning to appreciate having a turntable that can accomodate two arms. Their may be a slight influence from the SUT that I am using on the back arm and into the MM phono input. It is a Jensen external SUT very similar to the Jensen internal SUT on the Lamm LP2.1 Deluxe, but it is spec'd to match the LP1.1 Signature's internal SUT plus it has one extra set of SME phono cables into the phono input.
These two cartridges are a good illustration for me that there are different degrees of natural sound. Both sound right, but they are very slightly different. I do not know much about different cellos, nor have I listened to Helmerson ever play his instrument, but my friend and I sure thought we were in his presence listening yesterday, and thinking only about his performance of Crumb's music. Cartridge differences and the system itself were quickly forgotten.
We listened to Frans Helmerson playing Crumb's Sonata for Solo Cello on BIS LP-65 Stereo along with some other recordings. We both remarked that we did not have a preference, or rather appreciated the differences. It was as though there were two great cellists playing two different instruments, but both equally engaging. The XPP was a bit more direct and energetic with a bolder sound, while the Grand Cru sounded just a tad more relaxed, a bit sweeter and more nuanced with the string harmonics and wood tone. The instrument was also a bit further back in the stage. I thought the GC was slightly more resolving, but if not heard back to back, just seconds apart, it would have been quite difficult to describe any meaningful differences.
I listened to more music today with the new tubes in the amps. My impressions of the two cartridges remains the same. The older one is just slightly less nuanced but really engaging. There is a solidity to bass and brass and drums, more impact and weight. The newer cartridge is more nuanced with a slightly more articulate leading edge on cymbals, better separation between instruments, more string texture and piano decay. It may also be slightly more extended. Voices are very close.
EDIT: For Tima, here are some more specifics about the cello sound: With both cartridges, the wood cello body sounded very resonant and hollow. The weight was slightly more with the XPP, but the woodiness and and hollowness was more defined with the GC. It was more rich and colorful with the GC. The pizzicato was quicker with the XPP emphasizing the leading edge slightly more, while there was more tone and vibration with the GC. It was as thought the fingers were softer with the GC, quicker and stappier with the XPP. Bowing was more solid with the XPP but the GC has more string texture and detail. The decay was good with both, but the GC seemed a bit longer. Scale was appropriate with both having lots of energy but no defined edge. The XPP was a bit more upright and demanding attention, while the GC was more relaxed with more flow. These differences were subtle, but noticeable, and these differences were consistent with other acoustic music. EDIT
I do not know if I could choose one over the other. Perhaps I will play more classical and choir with the GC and more jazz/rock with the XPP. This is one reason I am really beginning to appreciate having a turntable that can accomodate two arms. Their may be a slight influence from the SUT that I am using on the back arm and into the MM phono input. It is a Jensen external SUT very similar to the Jensen internal SUT on the Lamm LP2.1 Deluxe, but it is spec'd to match the LP1.1 Signature's internal SUT plus it has one extra set of SME phono cables into the phono input.
These two cartridges are a good illustration for me that there are different degrees of natural sound. Both sound right, but they are very slightly different. I do not know much about different cellos, nor have I listened to Helmerson ever play his instrument, but my friend and I sure thought we were in his presence listening yesterday, and thinking only about his performance of Crumb's music. Cartridge differences and the system itself were quickly forgotten.
Last edited:
Hi Peter
I’m a little surprised you had to return the amps - you haven’t had them that long? Did you change both the small signal tubes as well as the 6c33b?
cheers
Andy
I’m a little surprised you had to return the amps - you haven’t had them that long? Did you change both the small signal tubes as well as the 6c33b?
cheers
Andy
Apologies - autocorrect sabotaged my message
“ surprised you had to retube the amps”
Hello Andy, I did not return the amps. I simply replaced the large tubes. These are the original ML2 amplifiers. They might be about 15-20 years old. I do not know how old the tubes were. I also leave all equipment on 24/7 and don’t know how that affects the age of the tubes.
Last edited:
I see. I dont know the actual pro/con of leaving on vs on/off - will certainly be amp dependent. I don’t leave my amps running all the time - they consume about a kW, so that was one reason. I’m also a little concerned about having a failure when I’m not there to turn it off. I’ve had tube amps for many years and always turned them off after a session.
Leaving Lamm on 24/7 will sound crystal clear great every moment but probably take tube life out quick. My amps take 3 hrs to get ultimate transparency. I just retubed my GM70 after 2 and a half yr. The output, the loudness is higher back to the way it used to. Transparency is not at the old level yet.
Hi Peter,
Thank you for this interesting and thoughtful cartridge comparison!
Not to be annoying, but I am a little bit confused by the see-saw of the adjectives.
How can the XPP be quicker and emphasize the leading edge more, but the GC has more detail?
How can the GC have more detail, but sound more relaxed?
What is "flow"?
Thank you!
Thank you for this interesting and thoughtful cartridge comparison!
Not to be annoying, but I am a little bit confused by the see-saw of the adjectives.
How can the XPP be quicker and emphasize the leading edge more, but the GC has more detail?
How can the GC have more detail, but sound more relaxed?
What is "flow"?
Thank you!
Excellent account, Peter. Thank you for the edit, writing about cello sound.
I'll be interested if your responses to Ron's questions match what I think/guess they will be.
My simple response would be: "I described what I heard."
I think you must be the first leaving tube amps, preamp, or phono on all the time
No he’s not, Lamm actually recommends leaving their gear on 24/7 unless one is away for while. According to Lamm the sudden surge of power from turn on will wear out the electronic components and tubes leaving them on prolongs their lifespan.
david
I know that is not the case. It was recommended to me both by DDK and by Lamm. I asked them when I ordered the tubes.
No worries Ron. I’m used to annoying questions. My gut is to follow Tim’s suggestion and just say I tried to describe what I heard, but here is my attempt at clarification.
1. The overall impression of the XPP is that it sounds quicker because there is slightly more emphasis on the leading edge and less on the decay. The duration of the notes sounds very slightly shorter. Of course the music is not faster but the impression is that the cellist is playing faster or in a slightly more aggressive style. The slight emphasis on the leading edge does not mean that the leading edge is more resolved or detailed it just means it sounds slightly louder.
2. The Grand Cru seems slightly more resolving. There is more nuance within each note and about the space in which the instruments are being played. The note and it’s development is both more complex and complete so I hear more detail. This degree of resolution and completion makes me feel more relaxed and the slightly less transient emphasis makes the music sound slightly more relaxed but not slower.
3. Flow is a weird word. Others use it so I tried to incorporate it in my description. Perhaps I will fail. The GC portrays the note more completely with less emphasis on the transient. The decays are longer and hang in space to interact and overlap with other notes from other instruments. This creates a better sense of nuance and with the added information retrieval and information about the space and spatial relationships between the instruments there is more ambience.
The music just seems to progress smoother a little bit better than with the XPP where the transient is more emphasized and the note is shorter and disappears.
These are all very subtle degrees and I am struggling with language to describe the differences between these cartridges which are actually very similar. The differences were much more pronounced when I compared the XPP to my old airtight supreme and MSL signature gold and when I compare the GC to the opus one and the atlas Lambda across various systems.
Those who have the Sme 3012R and adjust VTA with the playing cards will understand that once you get it into the right range of about 4-5 cards, the difference become quite subtle when adding or removing the cards. I find that I can very slightly change the character of the sound by very small movements. The differences I am describing are on that level. They may even have more to do with the set up on each arm then they do with inherent differences between the cartridges, though I do think the gold versus the platinum windings might account for some of it. I can also slightly change the sound of each cartridge with very small changes to the tracking force. Less force results in a more open sound but you sacrifice a little bit of weight. If the tracking force is too high the sound is closed in and you lose resolution, so it’s a real balancing act.
I also mentioned that the SUTs are slightly different and the external one has the extra phono cable. I made a recording of the same cartridge on the same arm going into the two different SUTs and David heard the subtle difference. So this is likely playing a role in the impressions also.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies it a bit. Without the two cartridges on identical arms on the same table allowing me to do direct comparisons within seconds, I’m not sure the subtle differences are very significant or meaningful for the enjoyment of the music. As I say, I like these cartridges both very much.
Last edited:
Same here. When I leave the house, all tube gear is turned off
I don't want my beloved house burnt-down in case of a tube failure while I'm away or even worse, when I'm alseep
I tend to leave line level devices on where the turn on often stresses the tubes. However, for amps, the output tubes typically have such short lifespans compared to small signal tubes I would not leave them on all the time...you will be replacing tubes every year that way for no good reason. I have found my amps reach stable sound after about 30-45 minutes...no need to leave on all the time.
You’re right about other brands I’m only repeating Lamm’s recommendation for their products and living with the same amps for over 20 years in daily service.
david
The platinum coil wires of the XPP do have a much higher DC resistance than the golden GC coils. It was always difficult for me to find a good matching MC stage for my former XPW (African grenadille wood corpus). If you have the chance, you might ask AJ for the DC resistance of your dedicated XPP (this is a function of the output voltage and the assembled magnet) and than get a customized step up for this rare cartridge. I liked the platinum coils a lot and still prefer them over the gold coils.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |