A Youtube Cartridge Comparison

[Gray]

Youtube. I know they say it's not the best way to audition audio, but anyone can hear the difference here. I've got an AT95E and some old Ortofon's. Expected the 2M to be the better of course and it is.

There's every chance you've already seen it. I just like the way he cut between the two:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfOixvd5yzg

Time to ask the experts....What's a better MM for the same price as the 2M Red?

 

[Al ears]

Youtube. I know they say it's not the best way to audition audio, but anyone can hear the difference here. I've got an AT95E and some old Ortofon's. Expected the 2M to be the better of course and it is.

There's every chance you've already seen it. I just like the way he cut between the two:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfOixvd5yzg

Time to ask the experts....What's a better MM for the same price as the 2M Red?

Better is an awkward term. There are cartridges around the same price as a 2M Red that give a different presentation that some may find more pleasing. There are some that give a more balanced sound, to my ears anyway. My money is on the Nagaoka MP110.

 

[abacus]

The Ortofon is clearer with greater resolution and detail, however I suspect they are not volume matched (At least that’s the impression I get) which rather negates the comparison. (If they are volume matched then the differences easily stand out)

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

 

[Deleted member 108165]

The Ortofon is clearer with greater resolution and detail, however I suspect they are not volume matched (At least that’s the impression I get) which rather negates the comparison. (If they are volume matched then the differences easily stand out)

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

Compared to modern recordings! Are you sure? Most of the mainstream artists who have released albums to CD from mid-90's to now are way more compressed than their earlier counterparts. However, if you are referring to classical then point taken.

 

[MajorFubar]

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

The ongoing annoyance is you often have to buy an album on the technically-inferior carrier in order to get access to the best sounding master. Sometimes I'm grateful for the fact that I'm really not that much into modern music.

Time to ask the experts....What's a better MM for the same price as the 2M Red?

I agree with Al Ears: 2M Red is often cited as a reference cartridge in its price range, I doubt there's much better, just different, depending on your presentation preference.

 

[Al ears]

The Ortofon is clearer with greater resolution and detail, however I suspect they are not volume matched (At least that’s the impression I get) which rather negates the comparison. (If they are volume matched then the differences easily stand out)

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

I fail to see how a review of cartridges is going to work over a social media site. Matched volume wise or not.

 

[Al ears]

The Ortofon is clearer with greater resolution and detail, however I suspect they are not volume matched (At least that’s the impression I get) which rather negates the comparison. (If they are volume matched then the differences easily stand out)

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

Compared to modern recordings! Are you sure? Most of the mainstream artists who have released albums to CD from mid-90's to now are way more compressed than their earlier counterparts. However, if you are referring to classical then point taken.

He's having a laugh isn't he? Compressed?

Limited frequency range maybe but it is n or the same thing....

 

[Al ears]

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

The ongoing annoyance is you often have to buy an album on the technically-inferior carrier in order to get access to the best sounding master. Sometimes I'm grateful for the fact that I'm really not that much into modern music.

Time to ask the experts....What's a better MM for the same price as the 2M Red?

I agree with Al Ears: 2M Red is often cited as a reference cartridge in its price range, I doubt there's much better, just different, depending on your presentation preference.

A reference cartridge only cited by those that can't be bothered to listen to anything else.....

Yes, everything needs to be referenced to something, and as this is a basic cartridge fitted to many cheap turntables it may be a baseline for many. Is it a good reference point..... for me the answer is no.

 

[Oldphrt]

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

The ongoing annoyance is you often have to buy an album on the technically-inferior carrier in order to get access to the best sounding master. Sometimes I'm grateful for the fact that I'm really not that much into modern music.

Time to ask the experts....What's a better MM for the same price as the 2M Red?

I agree with Al Ears: 2M Red is often cited as a reference cartridge in its price range, I doubt there's much better, just different, depending on your presentation preference.

A reference cartridge only cited by those that can't be bothered to listen to anything else.....

Yes, everything needs to be referenced to something, and as this is a basic cartridge fitted to many cheap turntables it may be a baseline for many. Is it a good reference point..... for me the answer is no.

Is it a bit sibilant?

 

[daytona600]

Nagoaka MP100

Shure M97xE
Audio Technica AT92ECD
Audio Technica AT95E
Ortofon 2M Red
Shure M92E
Shure M44-7
Grado Prestige Black 2
Goldring E3

Shure WHLB Whitelabel
Audio Technica AT100E
Audio Technica AT3482P
Ortofon OM10
Shure M78S Mono

Lots of great budget cartridges on the market

 

[MajorFubar]

Shure M78S Mono

I'd maybe give that a miss for vinyl playback lol.

 

[Al ears]

Shure M78S Mono

I'd maybe give that a miss for vinyl playback lol.

Unless you have a stack of old 78 rpm discs. ;-)

 

[ifor]

The Ortofon is clearer with greater resolution and detail, however I suspect they are not volume matched (At least that’s the impression I get) which rather negates the comparison. (If they are volume matched then the differences easily stand out)

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

I fail to see how a review of cartridges is going to work over a social media site. Matched volume wise or not.

If recorded to digital straight from the phonostage and streamed straight to your DAC and amp, it should be a fair comparison. Yes, something will be lost in YouTube compression.

 

[Al ears]

The Ortofon is clearer with greater resolution and detail, however I suspect they are not volume matched (At least that’s the impression I get) which rather negates the comparison. (If they are volume matched then the differences easily stand out)

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

I fail to see how a review of cartridges is going to work over a social media site. Matched volume wise or not.

If recorded to digital straight from the phonostage and streamed straight to your DAC and amp, it should be a fair comparison. Yes, something will be lost in YouTube compression.

Something will lost? I would suggest quite a lot would be lost. Even more so if you are listening to it over some scrappy desktop speakers. ;-)

 

[ifor]

isn't letting me post my reply.

Blocked again! maybe it'll let me edit this previously accepted post.

It didn't!

I tried posting as a new topic, but the spam filter blocked it again.

 

[Deleted member 108165]

isn't letting me post my reply.

Blocked again! maybe it'll let me edit this previously accepted post.

It didn't!

I tried posting as a new topic, but the spam filter blocked it again.

You are not alone, happens to me quite a lot too.

 

[MajorFubar]

Something will lost? I would suggest quite a lot would be lost. Even more so if you are listening to it over some scrappy desktop speakers. ;-)

The point is, the losses will be equal. In any case, YouTube SQ is 192k AAC, easily good enough to highlight anything but subtle differences.

Having made and posted-up similar videos myself (the last one being a comparison between a £30 cartridge and £300 cartridge), it never even went through my mind beforehand that most people on a hifi forum wouldn't be able to watch YouTube videos on some device connected to their hifi. I was shocked really, given the prevalence of smart TVs and YouTube apps on nearly every device but the kitchen toaster. But as a consequence I haven't ever bothered posting anything similar again.

 

[Gray]

...For some reason, repeatedly blocked quotes of the previous post.

I don't think anybody would say Youtube is the best way of evaluating audio equipment (even if some don't mind auditioning speakers via a phone!)

However, I expected those on this forum to be able hear an obviously identifiable and relevant difference between the two cartridges in this case.

Which leads us to the important question:

Is there actually anyone who could not?

 

[MajorFubar]

Some people just don't like judging SQ differences between analogue audio sources via a digital method, particularly a lossy one. The digitization of the unsullied analogue original has made the comparison null and void to their ears. Obviously that couldn't be further from my opinion.

 

[BigH]

The Ortofon is clearer with greater resolution and detail, however I suspect they are not volume matched (At least that’s the impression I get) which rather negates the comparison. (If they are volume matched then the differences easily stand out)

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

I fail to see how a review of cartridges is going to work over a social media site. Matched volume wise or not.

If recorded to digital straight from the phonostage and streamed straight to your DAC and amp, it should be a fair comparison. Yes, something will be lost in YouTube compression.

Something will lost? I would suggest quite a lot would be lost. Even more so if you are listening to it over some scrappy desktop speakers. ;-)

Reminds of that audiophile test, you need a good system to hear certain sounds on the recording, one was a Chris Jones song which had crickets at the beginning and end buried in the music, I could hear them quite easily on my crappy £50 computer sound system.

Actually I think some of the youtube videos are quite useful if they are recorded straight to digital and probably the best way to hear cartridges before buying. Dealers are usually a waste of time here. At least it gives you idea of what each one is like.

 

[Al ears]

The Ortofon is clearer with greater resolution and detail, however I suspect they are not volume matched (At least that’s the impression I get) which rather negates the comparison. (If they are volume matched then the differences easily stand out)

The biggest difference for me though, is just how compressed vinyl is (lack of dynamic range) compared to modern recordings. (It sounds nice, but is a long way off sounding real)

Bill

I fail to see how a review of cartridges is going to work over a social media site. Matched volume wise or not.

If recorded to digital straight from the phonostage and streamed straight to your DAC and amp, it should be a fair comparison. Yes, something will be lost in YouTube compression.

Something will lost? I would suggest quite a lot would be lost. Even more so if you are listening to it over some scrappy desktop speakers. ;-)

Reminds of that audiophile test, you need a good system to hear certain sounds on the recording, one was a Chris Jones song which had crickets at the beginning and end buried in the music, I could hear them quite easily on my crappy £50 computer sound system.

Actually I think some of the youtube videos are quite useful if they are recorded straight to digital and probably the best way to hear cartridges before buying. Dealers are usually a waste of time here. At least it gives you idea of what each one is like.

My point is trying to compare cartridges of a similar price point means being able to discern subtle differences. Not knowing how or through what equipment a YouTube video of said cartridges is made makes a mockery of comparison. I am sure, with the right software and a dodgy front end I could make a cartridge sound as good or as bad as I wanted.

The purchasers ears are everything and, whilst I know cartridges are hard to audition, they have to be because, unlike a digital source, the front end on an analogue system is everything.

 

[ifor]

recorded straight to digital from the phonostage and then Airplayed from YouTube to an AirPlay cabable DAC (in my case it’s to Pi/HiFiBerry Digi+ which feeds my DAC/preamp in main system) is not a particularly flawed system and probably the best way to compare cartridges.

 

[Gray]

recorded straight to digital from the phonostage and then Airplayed from YouTube to an AirPlay cabable DAC (in my case it’s to Pi/HiFiBerry Digi+ which feeds my DAC/preamp in main system) is not a particularly flawed system and probably the best way to compare cartridges.

Yes, certainly not an invalid comparison - assuming that one is not being deliberately made to sound inferior!

 

[ifor]

.. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVRr-dTzRK5TbZJSSSwWs-g

 

[Oldphrt]

Testing both at the end of a hot LP side will show greater differences. As it is, try a test. Play this track https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfO7u0m-2nc

then dig out the Joan Armatrading vinyl album and play it. I guarantee the you tube sound will be better, regardless of the equipment used.