Sublime Sound
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
My good friend Madfloyd gave me a few days ago his AirTight Opus 1 to listen to in my system for a couple of weeks while he is on vacation. I have read a lot of good things about this cartridge. I own both an AirTight PC-1 Supreme and a MySonicLabs Signature Gold, so my expectations are high. I will first mount it in the SME V-12 and compare the combination of V-12/Opus 1 to my reference combination of 3012R/vdH Grand Cru. Here are some photos. Listening impressions will follow after I have spent some time comparing and contrasting the sound of each combination. I also plan to switch the cartridges in the arms to hear the differences and see if impressions hold.
The Opus 1 stylus tip to mounting hole distance seems to be the same as it is on my Supreme, so I used the MINT Tractor protractor for overhang and zenith adjustments. VTF is 2.1g and VTA is set by ear. I also confirmed alignment (horizontal tracking angle) with the DB protractor I use for the 3012R. Ian tells me the cartridge is fully broken in.
I will say that I am impressed with the build quality and love the fact that it has a stylus guard for ease and safety while handling. The cantilever straight and easy to align for zenith using the MINT as seen in the last photo. It is difficult to see the stylus under the large body to confirm overhang, but I was able to see from an awkward angle. I do like the exposed cantilever designs for that purpose. The cartridge weighs 12.5 grams so I had to add an extra counterweight to my V-12 arm. This does allow the weight to slide up close to the pivot. I am using 1.5 -2.0 g anti-skate and static VTF rather than the spring loaded dynamic VTF. The cartridge screws are those supplied by AirTight with the cartridge. This will be a fun comparison. Thank you Ian.
EDIT: Cartridge loading for Opus 1 is 47K ohms. I have tried 500, 320, 100. It sounds the most natural at this "wide open" loading.
The Opus 1 stylus tip to mounting hole distance seems to be the same as it is on my Supreme, so I used the MINT Tractor protractor for overhang and zenith adjustments. VTF is 2.1g and VTA is set by ear. I also confirmed alignment (horizontal tracking angle) with the DB protractor I use for the 3012R. Ian tells me the cartridge is fully broken in.
I will say that I am impressed with the build quality and love the fact that it has a stylus guard for ease and safety while handling. The cantilever straight and easy to align for zenith using the MINT as seen in the last photo. It is difficult to see the stylus under the large body to confirm overhang, but I was able to see from an awkward angle. I do like the exposed cantilever designs for that purpose. The cartridge weighs 12.5 grams so I had to add an extra counterweight to my V-12 arm. This does allow the weight to slide up close to the pivot. I am using 1.5 -2.0 g anti-skate and static VTF rather than the spring loaded dynamic VTF. The cartridge screws are those supplied by AirTight with the cartridge. This will be a fun comparison. Thank you Ian.
EDIT: Cartridge loading for Opus 1 is 47K ohms. I have tried 500, 320, 100. It sounds the most natural at this "wide open" loading.
Last edited:
Round One:
I have completed the first part of my comparison: AirTight Opus 1/SME V-12 versus vdH Colibri Grand Cru/SME 3012R. I played about ten sides of LPs to get a sense of what the Opus 1 sounds like. I also listened to individual tracks in short succession, first on one cartridge/arm combination and then on the other combination. I played everything from jazz to choral to chamber to full orchestra. I did not play any modern thick reissues or rock/pop.
Here are my impressions. The Opus 1 (on the SME V-12) is an extremely pleasant, even beautiful, sounding cartridge. It is very resolving, does everything very well, and has no glaring shortcomings. It is a step up from both my AirTight PC-1 Supreme and my MySonicLab Signature Gold. In that sense, it is more pleasant than either as it combines their strengths. It retains the beautiful, rich midrange of the Supreme and adds the dynamics, weight, and extension of the Signature Gold. It does indeed combine the positive attributes of each of those two cartridges from the same designer for a more complete cartridge.
I have read comments that it is a great all-around and well balanced cartridge with no faults. I think Tang described it as an "A" without any "A-" or "A+". I have also read that other cartridges are better in a few specific areas. Having now done this first round of comparisons, I would agree with this assessment. It is a really excellent cartridge and I would enjoy owning it. However, in direct comparison to the Grand Cru, I do hear some differences. To my ears and in my system context, the Grand Cru does do some things better and nothing worse.
The Grand Cru is overall more natural sounding. The highs are airier and more extended. The dynamics are very slightly better. I also find the Grand Cru to be more resolving. It simply presents more information to the listener. The GC has that rare quality of being extremely resolving of the information in the grooves while not at the same time adding or embellishing any particular attributes. It took me a long time to accomplish, but I now have the GC set up so that it disappears in the system. It does not spotlight anything or draw any attention to itself. I listen and simply don't hear the cartridge. There is no subtle embellishment on any of my LPs. It has the highest level of natural resolution of any cartridge I have heard.
The Opus 1 by contrast adds just the slightest emphasis on the lower midrange. This is evident on male voices and on certain instruments like cello, saxophone, and piano. One I recognized this, I heard it again and again on a variety of LPs. In this sense, I notice the cartridge on various recordings. I hear what it contributes to the sound. I adjusted loading, VTA, and VTF all in an effort to ameliorate this tendency, but I still heard it. It is audible as a characteristic of this cartridge. I would also add that the Opus is not quite as extended in the high frequencies as is the Grand Cru. That last bit of energy on cymbals or violin or soaring soprano is missing.
The natural resolution and extreme level of information of the Grand Cru enables me to better hear the ambient information of the recording space. It also makes the musicians and instruments sound more "present", more real. It is not a matter of "them being here" or "me being there" but rather, it all depends on the recording and how it is made, so transparent to the recording is the Grand Cru. The girl with guitar in a studio can be in my living room, or I can be in the church listening to the organ and chorus.
That extra bit of information retrieval also gives the music just a bit more "life". The musicians are alive making music. The Opus 1 is just a bit flatter, less lively. It is beautiful and so easy to listen to, but it is not quite as moving an experience.
Now, I understand the inconsistent reactions people have had to the vdH cartridges and that the Opus 1 is universally praised. I can see how each cartridge finds its supporters and that the Opus has few if any detractors. For the music that I listen to, I slightly prefer the Grand Cru because it is so utterly natural sounding in my system and does not subtly embellish the music. It is more honest and I am not aware of it when listening.
Here are two videos of one of Beethoven's Middle String Quartets. I tried to match the volume level but it was not easy. The respective cartridge outputs are .45mV and .75mV. I don't know if what I describe above is audible to the listeners, but these images and sounds should provide some context to my remarks. This weekend I may try to switch the cartridges on the tonearms and continue the comparison in Round Two. I look forward to hearing if the initial impressions hold.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I think the extreme information retrieval (with very little added or removed) of the Grand Cru also contributes to the very believable timbre I am hearing. Cellos sound like cellos. I also have been hearing a very slight blurring of the sound. The Grand Cru seems slightly more focused or precise without sounding analytical or sterile. I don't really know how to describe this quality, but it is less "soft" sounding.
Video 1:
Video 2:
I have completed the first part of my comparison: AirTight Opus 1/SME V-12 versus vdH Colibri Grand Cru/SME 3012R. I played about ten sides of LPs to get a sense of what the Opus 1 sounds like. I also listened to individual tracks in short succession, first on one cartridge/arm combination and then on the other combination. I played everything from jazz to choral to chamber to full orchestra. I did not play any modern thick reissues or rock/pop.
Here are my impressions. The Opus 1 (on the SME V-12) is an extremely pleasant, even beautiful, sounding cartridge. It is very resolving, does everything very well, and has no glaring shortcomings. It is a step up from both my AirTight PC-1 Supreme and my MySonicLab Signature Gold. In that sense, it is more pleasant than either as it combines their strengths. It retains the beautiful, rich midrange of the Supreme and adds the dynamics, weight, and extension of the Signature Gold. It does indeed combine the positive attributes of each of those two cartridges from the same designer for a more complete cartridge.
I have read comments that it is a great all-around and well balanced cartridge with no faults. I think Tang described it as an "A" without any "A-" or "A+". I have also read that other cartridges are better in a few specific areas. Having now done this first round of comparisons, I would agree with this assessment. It is a really excellent cartridge and I would enjoy owning it. However, in direct comparison to the Grand Cru, I do hear some differences. To my ears and in my system context, the Grand Cru does do some things better and nothing worse.
The Grand Cru is overall more natural sounding. The highs are airier and more extended. The dynamics are very slightly better. I also find the Grand Cru to be more resolving. It simply presents more information to the listener. The GC has that rare quality of being extremely resolving of the information in the grooves while not at the same time adding or embellishing any particular attributes. It took me a long time to accomplish, but I now have the GC set up so that it disappears in the system. It does not spotlight anything or draw any attention to itself. I listen and simply don't hear the cartridge. There is no subtle embellishment on any of my LPs. It has the highest level of natural resolution of any cartridge I have heard.
The Opus 1 by contrast adds just the slightest emphasis on the lower midrange. This is evident on male voices and on certain instruments like cello, saxophone, and piano. One I recognized this, I heard it again and again on a variety of LPs. In this sense, I notice the cartridge on various recordings. I hear what it contributes to the sound. I adjusted loading, VTA, and VTF all in an effort to ameliorate this tendency, but I still heard it. It is audible as a characteristic of this cartridge. I would also add that the Opus is not quite as extended in the high frequencies as is the Grand Cru. That last bit of energy on cymbals or violin or soaring soprano is missing.
The natural resolution and extreme level of information of the Grand Cru enables me to better hear the ambient information of the recording space. It also makes the musicians and instruments sound more "present", more real. It is not a matter of "them being here" or "me being there" but rather, it all depends on the recording and how it is made, so transparent to the recording is the Grand Cru. The girl with guitar in a studio can be in my living room, or I can be in the church listening to the organ and chorus.
That extra bit of information retrieval also gives the music just a bit more "life". The musicians are alive making music. The Opus 1 is just a bit flatter, less lively. It is beautiful and so easy to listen to, but it is not quite as moving an experience.
Now, I understand the inconsistent reactions people have had to the vdH cartridges and that the Opus 1 is universally praised. I can see how each cartridge finds its supporters and that the Opus has few if any detractors. For the music that I listen to, I slightly prefer the Grand Cru because it is so utterly natural sounding in my system and does not subtly embellish the music. It is more honest and I am not aware of it when listening.
Here are two videos of one of Beethoven's Middle String Quartets. I tried to match the volume level but it was not easy. The respective cartridge outputs are .45mV and .75mV. I don't know if what I describe above is audible to the listeners, but these images and sounds should provide some context to my remarks. This weekend I may try to switch the cartridges on the tonearms and continue the comparison in Round Two. I look forward to hearing if the initial impressions hold.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that I think the extreme information retrieval (with very little added or removed) of the Grand Cru also contributes to the very believable timbre I am hearing. Cellos sound like cellos. I also have been hearing a very slight blurring of the sound. The Grand Cru seems slightly more focused or precise without sounding analytical or sterile. I don't really know how to describe this quality, but it is less "soft" sounding.
Video 1:
Video 2:
Last edited:
Thank you very much, Peter, for this series of original and ground-breaking comparisons! Your writing is crystal clear and conveys extremely effectively the differences between the cartridges, and makes your conclusions easily understandable and relatable.
I look forward to your future comparisons here, holding constant the tonearm.
I look forward to your future comparisons here, holding constant the tonearm.
Hi Peter, fun times in your living room. The Opus 1 lower mid emphasis can be reliably adjusted via loading in my system. I hate doing it, but I do have two sets of load plugs and swap them in and out based on the record for exactly this purpose. You also made tweaks to your system which - IME - would cater to the sonic signature (and it indeed has one) of the Grand Cru. E.g. the use of aged/vintage copper speaker (is it?) wire, Ching Chang PCs which also have a particular signature IME, etc. You also stated "It took me a long time to accomplish, but I now have the GC set up so that it disappears in the system." It has been several months if I recall since receiving your first GC? With a similar effort over an extended period of time, I'm confident you would also extract more of the Opus 1's capabilities although it may not be as good a match for the current state of your system than is the GC.
Enjoy the rest of the Opus 1 loaner period.
Enjoy the rest of the Opus 1 loaner period.
Hello Brian, Yes, fun times indeed. It's a great opportunity afforded to me by Madfloyd.
I have experimented with loading. I tried 47K, 500, 320, and 100. Each time I went down the sound degraded. 47K is my preferred setting. It is the most open and natural sounding in my system.
There is always someone more capable at setting up cartridges. However, the vdHs in general seem more difficult than other cartridges I have tried in my system. My AirTight Supreme and MSL Sig. Gold were not difficult, and the Opus 1 does not seem so either. I don't know if it is stylus shape or something else, but I heard this same qualities from the Opus in Madfloyd's system, when comparing it to his Lyra Atlas SL in his system context which of course I know well but not like my own system. I played around a lot with setting up the Opus. Regarding my cables and power cords, I have heard the Ching Cheng power cords in another system and prefer them to some other highly regarded alternatives. I suppose everything has a "signature." I think the CC have less of one. My speaker cables are four strands of NOS Western Electric 10 AWG copper in a proprietary weave with non-fancy spade connectors. They do not seem nearly as colored as other speaker cables I have tried in my system.
You make an interesting point about set up though. I could perhaps move around the speakers to change the sound of the Opus. I thought about moving the speakers slightly forward or further apart, a half inch or so, but this would then change the sound of the GC. I know because I have been making such small changes to speaker placement for months in an effort to fine tune the sound. I have settled on what I think sounds best. So, I suppose I could work on set up beyond the tonearm set up to perhaps reduce the slight lower mid accent, but that might well cause other problems. The Opus sounds excellent in my system. I just slightly prefer the more tonally balanced Grand Cru.
I have heard from others who are more experienced than I and they have reported similar impressions about the Opus. I understand full well why people like it the Opus so much. It has an extremely pleasing sound and is gorgeous on some material. I think Ron Resnick will love this cartridge on his girl with guitar type recordings and on slower jazz.
I will see if my impressions change when it is mounted on the 3012R. As with many things, personal preference plays a big role in all of this. I am simply reporting my impressions of the sound of these two cartridges in my own system.
Yes, Peter, of course it's your own system. That's a given. As we've discussed, at this level, system matching is key and then preference is the real decision maker. You've made tweaks to your system in order to obtain the best experience from the VdH sound. Presumably you've tweaked the cart alignment also. Generally, your tweaks add up to me. The VdH can be a bit tilted in the treble and also a bit lean. Certainly compared to many Japanese carts. But, off axis, straight forward speaker arrangement will help roll the treble somewhat, which is advantageous for the VdH, IME, but not so for the Opus 1. By contrast, I listen to the Opus 1 on axis in an equilateral triangle arrangement. The treble shines and shimmers - bright, in a good, natural way. The soundstage is huge. No toe out needed. Treble with bright clarity and full body simultaneously, for example on cymbals, was a new experience with the Opus 1. The Western Electric vintage wires have a "classic" tone which I would also think works well with VDH, and CC PCs are a bit subdued. I have 6 of the CCs myself and I have compared WE wire to Duelund tinned copper wire some time back. I didn't have "speaker cables" made as there is no need for any connectors. I simply connected the bare wire to my binding posts. I'd used this wire to counter a fairly bright SS phono stage, and it worked well. But I removed it from my system when I sold that phono. Anyhow, I digress, and my point here is that you've put a lot into your room and system to best achieve your desired end result. I think you'd be in a very different place if these tweaks were evaluated with an Opus 1 or really any other cart in the tonearm from the get go. Conjecture, but I bet 85% of what we hear in a system and react to with tweaks is the cart.
Last edited:
Thanks very much Peter for this insight. It was great to be able to hear both these carts and the Beethoven.
I really enjoyed the way your system is sounding in these and both carts carry you into the music easily... and while I enjoyed both I did think that the GC was sounding more of a piece which (from my perspective) is a very real virtue.
It was great to get another glimpse into where all your optimising is heading and how your system is moving in what is sounding very much like a great direction. Loving the way the music comes through... which is the great summation.
Last edited:
Funny, I've never thought of the Master Sig with the words "extreme information retrieval" - perhaps what I hear from it is a consequence of that.
The first thing I thought with the Opus 1 video from the opening bars, without hearing the Grand Cru was: warm. When I played the GC video my first thought was: vivacity.
Each is a very nice cartridge.
The second video is much more energy, life, nuance, dynamic range, more real. The first is like any normal hifi
I too prefer the VDH video, Peter. In your system the upper mid has a recess with the Opus that makes the violin tone sound less real - it loses some speed and dynamic edge. Please can you send same with your Master Signature.
There is a system gain thing going on too imho - the doubled output of the VDH seems to be driving the Pass phono with more life.
On another note, I think your system sounds really improved based on videos - tone in particular.
There is a system gain thing going on too imho - the doubled output of the VDH seems to be driving the Pass phono with more life.
On another note, I think your system sounds really improved based on videos - tone in particular.
If the second video is the VdH cart then I prefer that cart. The second video was significantly better, IMO. In isolation the first one was also good but I felt it had less dynamic contrast and was a bit muted by comparison. I felt a veil preventing some connection to the music in contrast to the more vibrant and alive sounding second video.
Indeed, everything is about system context and system setup. A few years ago we compared two cartridges in Peter's system (AirTight PC-1 Supreme and my MySonicLab Signature Gold). Back then I suggested that their tonal balance could be made more alike, with less of a clear preference for one of the two cartridges as heard in the particular setup of that day, if the speaker toe-in was changed depending on the cartridge in the system. This would not mean that then the cartridges would sound the same, but that variation in tonal balance would play less of a factor in the assessment of their sonic qualities.
Peter and I have had discussions about how, when evaluating a new component in a system, the system setup might have to be optimized around that component so that it could sound best. This does not necessarily mean change of the toe-in of speakers, but perhaps other changes in speaker positioning or adjustments at the level of electronics or room acoustics.
In my own system of course everything is also optimized around the components that I have, in particular in terms of speaker setup and room acoustics, just as it is in Peter's system now with his preferred vdH cartridges. Were I to change my digital front end, or the amplification, for example, I might feel the need to somewhat tweak the set-up as well.
Some people say that if you have both analog and digital source components, it can be hard to set up the system in such a way that it sounds the best for both of them. My own experiences confirm that, especially when the tonal balances somewhat differ between the sources.
The well-written description that Peter gives of the relative differences between the two arm/cartridge combinations with the vdH and Opus 1 cartridges sounds valid to me. Yet it should indeed be kept in mind that the setup is optimized for one the two cartridges. I also suspect that the assessment will slightly change once Peter switches the arms for the two cartridges.
The Opus1's clarity and dimensionality could approach that of the vdh but never equal. Play around with it a bit it could sound better than what you hear in this video. The pleasant sound could be more exciting sound with the right arm. The energy and high will never equal the vdh... but what does? The low mid is added when comparing to vdh. But if compare to msl, koetsu and most other Japanese carts you will know how much more colored those carts are. On second video, at dynamic peaks I thought it sounded borderline out of control. At those peaks it lost naturalness.
Last edited:
Thank you everyone for the great comments. I really appreciate those who took the time to listen to both videos and share their impressions. I am pleased that some of what I am hearing does indeed come through on the videos. It seems everyone prefers the second video with 3012R and Grand Cru. This weekend I will switch cartridges and share new impressions and videos. I am thinking of recording the same music at the same volume so that we can hear directly the differences between the cartridges on the same arm and also the arms with the same cartridge.
I do find fascinating the idea that one can fine tune the sound of ones system for specific components like different cartridges. It makes sense, but I worry that it is not as simple as has been suggested. For instance, changing the toe-in of the speakers will indeed alter tonal balance, but it does other things as well. I would not want to add toe-in to help the Opus sound more like the Grand Cru at the expense of the perception of soundstage dimensions and shape, or overall liveliness of the sound. If the highs improve, what happens to the lower frequencies?
Surely people with multiple arms/cartridges do not do this. Is a system optimized for one specific combination of gear? Perhaps, but then what about changing flavors as the mood strikes? Does Fremer move his speakers when he auditions new cartridges? I don't think the solution lies here. How are we to ever understand the differences between components if we tell ourselves that the system is only optimized for the one we prefer? I will have to give this some more thought, but we will see how switching the arms first changes things.
I do find fascinating the idea that one can fine tune the sound of ones system for specific components like different cartridges. It makes sense, but I worry that it is not as simple as has been suggested. For instance, changing the toe-in of the speakers will indeed alter tonal balance, but it does other things as well. I would not want to add toe-in to help the Opus sound more like the Grand Cru at the expense of the perception of soundstage dimensions and shape, or overall liveliness of the sound. If the highs improve, what happens to the lower frequencies?
Surely people with multiple arms/cartridges do not do this. Is a system optimized for one specific combination of gear? Perhaps, but then what about changing flavors as the mood strikes? Does Fremer move his speakers when he auditions new cartridges? I don't think the solution lies here. How are we to ever understand the differences between components if we tell ourselves that the system is only optimized for the one we prefer? I will have to give this some more thought, but we will see how switching the arms first changes things.
I very much agree with the observation about the dynamic peaks. Kind of like a rear wheel drive sports car without traction control on and the back end is twitching and about to kick out lol.
I actually didnt think the Opus 1 video sounded very good at all. Without something objective as a baseline such as Analog Magik, when comparing two carts, we can't know if we're actually comparing two different alignments as a (big) variable as well. Additionally, it could be gain like Bill mentions, level matching, and even tonearm mass and resonance. On the bright side, Peter, (no pun intended) you've accomplished something very good sounding with the VdH after all your recent changes to dial it in. Not even comparatively speaking, I think it sounds great outright. And certainly much better than it ever did in my system.
Regarding toe out, definitely personal preference. Aside from not hearing the speaker response as intended, I actually dislike what it does to soundstage. With many records, e.g. hard panned jazz trios, it creates an exaggerated U-shaped stage which just sounds wrong to me. With other material, the edges of the stage sound stretched artificially and scale is inconsistent from the edges to the center.
Regarding toe out, definitely personal preference. Aside from not hearing the speaker response as intended, I actually dislike what it does to soundstage. With many records, e.g. hard panned jazz trios, it creates an exaggerated U-shaped stage which just sounds wrong to me. With other material, the edges of the stage sound stretched artificially and scale is inconsistent from the edges to the center.
Last edited:
Similar threads
