Analog Gear News

Listening at work through my PSB headphones on a Win machine I can hear no noticeable difference between tracks 1-3. Will try tonight on my ipad.

Thank you for posting. I am anxious to know which is which but the first file is the clear winner for me. Much more detail. I heard the original arm last year and was shocked how good it is. People need to get over the prices of equipment and just except it for what it is. Yet people can justify the prices of Ferrari's and exotic cars and never complain. They dont understand the costs and time it take to make state of the art audio equipment.

The only thing wrong with making exclusive products, at such high prices, is I'm not part of the small customer base. Still appreciate getting a chance to compare the sound.

Mikey,

Thanks for posting these.

I'm actually quite surprised at the differences. Track 1 seems to have (not literally, but in some ways) twice the information as Track 2. At least it seems on several listens through a decent computer set-up.

I went back n' forth until listening fatigue set-in, but as far as I can figured tracks 1&3 are the closer pair and track 2 is the clear winner with a massive dynamic range and just greater sense of presence, realism, and just flushing out more of the music.

Between 1&3 I'd give the edge to 3.

My guess is that it's:

1 - Original SAT
2 - CF
3 - LF

But that's all just a guess. If I'm dead wrong about #2 then I just saved myself $25k in fantasy dollars I'd never have to spend anyway!

Best,

Glickman

Prefer track #1 followed closely by track #3.

I couldn’t detect any difference between the for tracks. Strange enough, having had to convert aiff to flac the resulting format is now 16/96. Most strange.

It's amazing how on arm X/table X the transients are noticeably softer and less immediate than on tracks 1-3. It's not at all subtle if you're listening for it.

Great sounding Ortofon!
Does track 3 have a slightly lower noise floor, or am i just dreaming this.
Tracks 3 and 1 did it for me, but 1/2/3 do have a similar signature sound for me.
Great tracks btw...

First, it's really amazing how turntable playback keeps improving. New materials, better manufacturing, and the advances in computer aided design really help. How far can this go?

Second is a little bit wider.

Mikey converts these tracks into digital format through a relatively modest analog-to-digital converter. Certainly, it's something that every real studio in business to make money could afford to use. There's probably even better units out there, too.

Even after this conversion, the differences between tracks can be heard even through modest digital playback gear. (I listened just now with a Dragonfly Red and some Emotiva powered desktop speakers. Hardly state of the art)

That suggests that maybe "digital" isn't so bad, after all.

So, what's the deal?

I'm thinking that in the process between the the microphones and my iMac, there's something bad going on. Whether it's crappy mixing and editing through software, bad analog-to-digital conversion, or whatever, something quite different is taking place than with Mikey's set-up.

Here's my conclusion.

All the best recording quality was done in the analog era. The reason why is out of our control. The real archive is vinyl. Even tape deteriorates over time.

Iphone 6s and JBL E50BT, connected with a tiny cable:
1) most natural clicks and pops
2) no difference I would pay for
3) slight shift to the right channel?
4) 50 hz hum

Under the conditions mentioned above Amazon Unlimited Stream of the song isn't worse.

How much time did you spent to change the arms and cartridges and record the result. At least 5 hours I estimate. Thanks.

Michael, many thanks for all the effort you have put into preparing these files. Very interesting comparison indeed. Have this great album as well.

3rd place 2
2nd place 3 (brings better bass than 2)
1st place 1 (keeps the good bass and adds better mids/texture solidity)

Using cheap laptop DAC with good IEM. Order might change with better gear but I doubt it there is a decent gap between 2nd and 1st IMO.

The pricing is still stupid and IMO is set at what a very small subset in Asia are willing to pay with plenty of margin left for the dealer to knock of 10 or 20%....

is the best by a good margin IMO. Track 3 would be my second favorite. That Ortofon has to be the best MC cartridge that I have ever heard and I'm not even an MC fan.

the Lyra.

I liked the bass of #2, especially at the beginning of the track, but I think I liked the last few minutes of 1 and 3 better. No idea which arm is which, but I know I love that track and need to get that record!! :-D

Michael,

I want to take a minute to thank you for introducing me to Atlantic Bridge with your 24/96 download.

Less than a minute after starting it on my rig, without any thought about trying to describe the sound, the thought “this dances!” popped in my head. I think it would be hard to come up with two words that could sum it up better.

No doubt you enjoy AB playing on your analog system over even this fine digital high res copy.
May I ask what CD player or transport/DAC you use when you play your digital high res files?
I would imagine they are high performing choices but perhaps not in the very top price range for
digital gear.

Since you enjoy Irish instrumentals and music (updated from traditional) I recommend checking out
the group ‘Flook’ if you have not listening to their music. The musicianship of Brian Finnegan on Irish
whistles and flutes and Sarah Allen on flutes and accordion is pretty stunning.
Floor’s two best albums are titled ‘Haven’ and ‘Rubai’. Finnegan’s solo album ‘Ravishing Beauty of Bones’ is likewise exceptional.

Best regards,

Bob Fitzgerald
Ludlow, Vermont

P.S.
I’ve always strived to assemble the best sounding system I could for the price point I could afford. The past 10+ years that goal has been helped greatly by Ric Schultz (tweak audio.com) Ric upgrades players and DACs in myriad ways based on his years of experience and countless hours listening. His customers who have serious money invested in very high end DACs report that Ric’s modded Oppo UDP-205 outperforms some high end DACs which cost 3 - 5 times his modded Oppo.

For those who are enjoying this music, I would suggest trying Moving Hearts album Storm. The opening track "Lark" which is 13 mins long is worth the money alone. I suspect it will sound spectacular on Michael's system.

This was very interesting. #1 and #3 sound most alike. #2 had much more bass and more dobro harmonics, so I'm going to say that is the CF1-09. #1 was slightly better than #3 so it must be the LM-09. Leaving #3 to be the Original SAT arm.

The first three have it all over #4. It is just lacking detail and focus.

I think track one is clearly the best, followed by track three.
Track two is quite a long way behind!
So, I presume the order is:

1: CF1
2: original SAT
3: LM

I listened to all tracks on my ipad only.

Track 1 by a mile
Track 3 is the runner up
Track 2 had boomy bass

Are you able to upload something we'd all be familiar with and many of us would have? Legacy version of Kind of Blue for instance or perhaps something from the OJC version of Sunday at the Village Vanguard? Then we could compare our own rigs with the high priced spread.

I hear #1 as simply more air, definition, perhaps because of that slightly steely on high notes. As per other comments #3 is close but overall smoother, less etched and for many less 'tiring' (think tube vs transistor. #2 less defined overall. Heard via macbook air.

I used Airplay to send the tracks to a Naim ND555 from my ipad, I’m fairly new to streaming and don’t know if the stream still goes through the pad or if it’s switched directly to the 555, I suspect the former. Of the 3 versions the 3rd had me more involved and the music seemed more expressve. The other two had elements that stood out more but whole was the less for it.

Using Roon on my iMac to play the files through an Audioquest Dragonfly Red, Schiit Lyr2 to Hifiman HE-560.
Track 1. Best leading edge attach and metal quality to the strings. Best instrumental separation. My favorite.
Track 2. Very very good but not quite as dynamic as track 1 or 3. Mellower.
Track 3. Second favorite. Like track 3 but just a little less of everything.

Thanks for posting!

I love the Lyra track too!

file 1: SAT CF1-09
file 2: possibly kuzma 4point tonearm
file 3: original SAT
file 4: SAT LM-09

according to the files that I've listened, the new SAT arms sound more life like as if they're allowing the cartridge to read the information in the groove better. also the channel separation is better too. maybe it's the result of technological improvements of the design or maybe just using better cables inside the tonearm.

1 - least accurate of first three, a bit of overhang in the bass with less detail and sounded slightly "hyped". I'd guess original SAT arn

2 - most accurate top to bottom, best bass control and most detail. I'd guess CF1

3 - more refined version of first arm, I'd guess LM

4 - it's like... if the SAT arms were 1st gen masters, this is a 1 to 2 gen older copy. lost dynamics, detail, and sounds pinched during complex passages. This is also what drives me nuts about vinyl, sure it sounds great but if you want the good sh!t - you gotta pony up major dough. Way more than digital, way more than even a fully restored and Tim de Parvinici upgraded Ampex ATR-102 1/2" 2 track open reel machine (finest analog tape deck ever, period) on which you can play actual master tapes.

there's no comment from a malachi on here currently, no idea which were actually which.

1 is my preferred version. 3 quite close behind. 2 a bit further back. Bigger sense of space in 1and slightly more texture in the bass to my ears, though took quite a number of listens to get to this decision.
Subscribe to a couple of streaming services. Had a listen to these as comparison. 16/44 streams, so not direct comparison. However all 4 of these sound better, though only just in case of track 4

Michael, I cannot discern any noticeable difference on my iPad with my AKG closed headphones. Just out of interest did your Audacity work determine the dynamic range from the vinyl? Dr Mark Waldrep reckons that digital recordings capture wider dynamic range than analogue ever can, due to mastering limitations to help the stylus stay in the groove and so on. Any comments on that or will you be too angry to reply?

Listening through Macbook using Senheiser HD 650 (20 yrs old).

Track 1 I found to be slightly truncated, missing some of the minute resolution of 2 and 3. Harsher on the reed instrument. Original SAT

Track 2 better bass control and attach. The most air and detail. better plucking of strings. My guess is CF-09

Track 3 slightly less air than 2 to me. A little less nuance and detail. My guess is LM-09

Track 4 is no slouch but noticeably lacking in instruments ringing through. Music was much more truncated. I suggest it is the Kuzma 4-point. No suggestion on the table but sounds like a table without the Minus K suspension! I can pick up the sound of a hum before it goes into the music. Much less black background than the others.

Given the majority appear to prefer #1 it's nice to know I don't have cloth ears!

I thought that file 1 had more bottom end extension and immediacy. It also appeared that the track had been recorded with the mike/s closer in.

So Mickey now your last review is out put us out of our misery and inform us all which track matches which arm?