[net.audio] Subjective reviews of 4 moving coil cartridges

kimr@tektronix.UUCP (Kim Rochat) (03/04/85)

(I apologize if this is a repeat.  As far as I can tell, my previous
posting never made it off of tektronix)

During the past several weeks, I have compared 3 moving coil cartridges
with my Fidelity Research MC201 to see what improvements have
been made in the last 3 years.  The cartridges compared were:

      Fidelity Research MC201   ~$350
      Sumiko Alchemist IIIS      $425  High output
      Monster Alpha 1            $475
      Monster Alpha 2            $650

These 4 cartridges are rated below on 5 subjective scales.  The ends of
each scale correspond to the best performing cartridge and the worst
performing cartridge for each criteria.  Therefore the scales represent
only the performance of the cartridges relative to each other, not to
some absolute standard.  The performance criteria relate to the 
reproduction of acoustic music performed in concert halls:

TONAL BALANCE:  The subjective impression of the tilt of the frequency
		response - Warm being emphasized mid-bass and neutral or
		diminished treble, and Cool being emphasized treble and
		(for the Alchemist) diminished mid-bass.

SOUNDSTAGE:     The sense of presence in the actual auditorium - how aware
                are you of the refections from the walls?  Can you tell which
		walls you're hearing the reflections from?  Is the shape of
		the soundstage appropriate (i.e. rectangular)?
		
FOCUS:          How precisely can you visualize instruments and performers?
		Are they appropriately sized and located with relation to
		each other?  

TRANSPARENCY:   Does the degree of focus extend throughout the soundstage,
		or diminish after the first few feet?  Can you hear the
		different rows of musicians in the BACK of the orchestra?

DYNAMIC RANGE:  Are differences in dynamics clearly delineated?  Are softs
		soft?  Do fortissimo passages break up? 

The Key: (F)  Fidelity Research MC201
	 (A)  Sumiko Alchemist IIIS
	 (1)  Monster Alpha 1
	 (2)  Monster Alpha 2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tonal Balance:  Warm                   Neutral                   Cool
                 1                   F    2                       A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soundstage:     Poor                                             Excellent
                 F                1      A                        2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focus:          Fuzzy                                            Clear
                 F                1         A                     2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transparency:   Opaque                                           Transparent
                 F                       1       A                2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic Range:  Poor                                             Excellent
                 F                  A              1              2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

MINI-REVIEWS:

MC201 - Neutral tonal balance, but poor focus, transparency and dynamic 
        range.  Neglectable soundstage.  Good but not great bass performance.
	Vertical tracking angle (VTA) not particularly critical.

Alchemist IIIS - Very bright, glary tonal balance with noticably deficient
		 fundamentals, especially on brass.  I reduced the VTA until
		 the cartridge body hit the record without being able to 
		 tame the glare on "Symphony Fantastique".  VTA critical
		 (changes of 1/4 millimeter in arm height easily heard).
		 Bass performance worse than MC201.  Excellent imaging, good
		 soundstage.

Alpha 1 - Warm tonal balance - a very seductive sound at first.  Focus and
	  transparency not as good as Alchemist, but better bass response
	  and dynamic range.  VTA semi-critical.

Alpha 2 - Very neutral, very dynamic, and excellent bass response.  Image
	  focus such that instruments are approximately 1/2 the width 
	  percieved with the Alpha 1, surrounded by "air".  (With the
	  Alpha 1, adjacent instruments seemed to overlap.  With the
	  Alpha 2, they don't.  A good test is to see if you are aware
	  of which flute player is on left and which is on the right when both
	  are playing in an orchestra.  First time I was aware of 
	  hearing the separation between rows in the back of the orchestra.
	  VTA semi-critical (glares if too high).

	  The Alpha 2 also makes obvious the excesses of multi-miking.  Things
	  I guessed about before are painfully obvious now.
	  
RECORDINGS:
	     Reference Recordings: Symphony Fantastique
				   Church Windows

	     Opus 3:               Test Record 1: Depth of Image
				   New Sides (Peoria Jazz Band)
				   Yafuchica

	     Mercury Living Presence: March Time (Fennell)

	     Proprius:             Jazz at the Pawnshop

	     Wilson Audio:         Magnum Opus Volume I
				   Rag-ma-tazz Volume II

ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT:
                      Dennison Sound-tractor alignment gauge
		      VPI Record Cleaner
		      LAST record preservative and STYLAST
		      Audioquest and Audio Technica Headshells
		      Technics EPA-100 tonearm modified by Mod Squad
		      SOTA Sapphire vacuum table
		      Peterson "Emerald" interconnects
		      Verion moving coil transformer
		      RGR 4-1 preamp (accompanied by 3 VPI magic bricks)
		      Robertson 4010 power amp
		      Mod Squad tiptoes under electronics
		      Monster Powerline II speaker cable
		      JSE Model 2 speakers

EAR CALIBRATION: Subscription to the Oregon Symphony.

THE PUNCH LINE:  I bought the Alpha 2.  Anyone like an MC201 cheap?

Questions and comments are welcome.

Kim Rochat
tektronix!kimr
kimr@tektronix  (CSNet)