Pio1980
AK Member
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
I quit paying attention to Peter Aczel when he started spouting "it-all-sounds-the-same" stuff like this.
I suppose we otta give the thread back to the OPs topic sometime.
Last edited:
Clearaudio cartridges
- Thread starter grottyash
- Start date
:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
I quit paying attention to Peter Aczel when he started spouting "it-all-sounds-the-same" stuff like this.
I suppose we otta give the thread back to the OPs topic sometime.
speedle
Peanut gallery owner
I want to make that my new signature line, ha!
Ironically, I believe that some of what Alan is saying is that amps should be chosen partly based on specifications. Which, while true, belies the fact that amplifiers can be measurably proven to be, and sound, different. But that's a whole different thread!
CA vs AT body
I've replaced several CA styli up through the Virtuoso with an AT95/3400
stylus, either OEM or HE/Shibata (available from Stereo Needles or LP
Gear) If the plastic wings are clipped, the only visual difference is the
top color of the plug plate. I.E., CA-Black, AT95E-Green, HE-Blue,
Shibata-Gray. The stylus is clearly replacable and can be removed
with a small screwdriver. Actually, the AT95E body is slightly longer
so if the stylus is put in the CA body without removing the plastic
wings, there would be a little gap at the front. The Linn K-9 body
appears to be the same length as the CA,(also an AT). The CA
cantilevers and diamond may be different, particularly on the
Virtuoso, and the wood mount would probably change the sound
compared to the AT. The AT95E does not have the better wiring
so would not compare, but the styli themselves, work very well.
Even an AT92E P mount stylus will fit if the wings are clipped
but a P mount would have different compliance etc.,
Other examples exist with the Sumiko Pearl rebadged and the
Garrott K series being able to use Excel styli etc., The V2 CA
series has stronger magnets so a transplant would have
reduced output. Also, believe the cartridge body is all covered
with wood, not just the top so the body is not as visible. The
inductance and impedance are different than the high end
ATs, probably due to CA specifications...not unusual if the
product is outsourced...... The AT plugs have a screw under
the white spot on the plug so a very high end AT stylus can
actually be transplanted before insertion in the CA
body. (The CA plug has a steel sleeve so it won't work)...
The CA Classic would have little difference from the AT95E
except the wood top plate, but as you go up the line, the
styli would increase in quality even if the body stayed
pretty much the same. The Virtuoso is clearly a fine unit,
notwithstanding its provenance.
I've replaced several CA styli up through the Virtuoso with an AT95/3400
stylus, either OEM or HE/Shibata (available from Stereo Needles or LP
Gear) If the plastic wings are clipped, the only visual difference is the
top color of the plug plate. I.E., CA-Black, AT95E-Green, HE-Blue,
Shibata-Gray. The stylus is clearly replacable and can be removed
with a small screwdriver. Actually, the AT95E body is slightly longer
so if the stylus is put in the CA body without removing the plastic
wings, there would be a little gap at the front. The Linn K-9 body
appears to be the same length as the CA,(also an AT). The CA
cantilevers and diamond may be different, particularly on the
Virtuoso, and the wood mount would probably change the sound
compared to the AT. The AT95E does not have the better wiring
so would not compare, but the styli themselves, work very well.
Even an AT92E P mount stylus will fit if the wings are clipped
but a P mount would have different compliance etc.,
Other examples exist with the Sumiko Pearl rebadged and the
Garrott K series being able to use Excel styli etc., The V2 CA
series has stronger magnets so a transplant would have
reduced output. Also, believe the cartridge body is all covered
with wood, not just the top so the body is not as visible. The
inductance and impedance are different than the high end
ATs, probably due to CA specifications...not unusual if the
product is outsourced...... The AT plugs have a screw under
the white spot on the plug so a very high end AT stylus can
actually be transplanted before insertion in the CA
body. (The CA plug has a steel sleeve so it won't work)...
The CA Classic would have little difference from the AT95E
except the wood top plate, but as you go up the line, the
styli would increase in quality even if the body stayed
pretty much the same. The Virtuoso is clearly a fine unit,
notwithstanding its provenance.
Hadn't picked up on this, but you seem to have misunderstood. Apart from the switch, which you operate, to swap from one amp to another, the control is that volume levels are exactly matched.
If one amp sounds does the same as another at the same volume level, there's not much to discuss. I'm not surprised the audio industry, plus all audiophiles, decided not to try the test, the implications are huge and challenge some long accepted truths.
Come here and listen to how different amps react to my Quad 63s. Then go home with a different thought in your head about all amps being the same. The test wasn't done because it was a massive ego-masturbation for Alan Shaw. And he said that EQ should be accounted for, not just volume. As in, you make one amp sound like the other amp, which is exactly what happens in the amp challenge. They are trying to say that different amp topologies sound the same when the amps are not stressed. The problem is, amps do get stressed and they react differently to different loads. So while you may not be able to tell one amp from another when EQed to sound alike at a non-stressful volume on the same speakers (no duh) there's much more to it than that, and amps are often competent or not or good or not depending upon how they handle non-ideal circumstances. One thing he was getting at is that Harbeth speakers are an easy load, and it is true that amp quality is less important on them, because they tend not to do anything all that strange that would reveal as much difference.
Why listen to a speaker designer about amps? Go read the words of some amp designers. Its not an audiophile conspiracy. Its a speaker designer with an enormous ego revealed throughout every bit of communication he participates in (interviews, and especially the Harbeth Users Group) thinking that only what he does matters, that only he has the keys.
Why listen to a speaker designer about amps? Go read the words of some amp designers. Its not an audiophile conspiracy. Its a speaker designer with an enormous ego revealed throughout every bit of communication he participates in (interviews, and especially the Harbeth Users Group) thinking that only what he does matters, that only he has the keys.
No, that isn't the case, he was talking about volume, I asked him specifically about that.
Interesting you have Quads. Did not Peter Walker, the designer of your 63s, have something controversial to say about amps? In fact, didn't he have much the same to say as Alan Shaw
?
Interesting you have Quads. Did not Peter Walker, the designer of your 63s, have something controversial to say about amps? In fact, didn't he have much the same to say as Alan Shaw
?No, that isn't the case, he was talking about volume, I asked him specifically about that.
Interesting you have Quads. Did not Peter Walker, the designer of your 63s, have something controversial to say about amps? In fact, didn't he have much the same to say as Alan Shaw
And he was often mocked for it. Another speaker designer who couldn't see beyond his own genius. When you dig deep into these comments you often get to the idea that its not that these guys don't hear differences, its that they think the differences are subtle, pointless, and don't matter. Which is to say, they don't matter to them and they have no business assuming what matters to somebody else.
A Pass Aleph 30 sounds quite different from a Pioneer Series 20 amp. If somebody can't hear it, that is there issue and I'm not castrating my own happiness to please their egotistical agendas and self-involved opinions about what they do in the industry. People are having fun. Let them. Nelson Pass will tell you why the Aleph 30 sounds different, and Alan Shaw would probably concoct a story that the amp is poorly designed to cover for those differences.
FWIW, there are probably fewer people who talk more eloquently about the differences in amp sound than Nelson Pass. I hope that Peter Walker appreciates the irony in me running the Aleph 30 on his wonderful ESL-63s
. They're as near a perfect match as I've come across in audio.
Last edited:
I hope that Peter Walker appreciates the irony in me running the Aleph 30 on his wonderful ESL-63s
And I hope you're not waiting for Peter to post a response.
-Bob
Pio1980
AK Member
griffithds
Active Member
For CA to say they make their own cartridges, is not the same as saying we make "all" of our own cartridges! The question put to CA was not do you make cartridges, but did you make the Virtuoso line in it entirety or only in part! They answered the question the way a politician would answer.
neobop
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter what their answer is/was.
The proof is in the stylus assembly. Pull out the stylus and you see an Audio Technica patented stylus with V magnets. This happens to be on an Audio Technica 3400 series fitment plug with an identical (to ATN95E) fitting replacing the compliance screw.
This is not circumstantial evidence. It's fact.
neo
No, it does matter.
Bear in mind Clearaudio make a number of cartridges, not just MM. Also, they've recently released a new MM line. You might also want to look at the links earlier in this thread which show cartridges being made at the Clearaudio facility.
Besides, no-one has yet posted photos or any evidence for that matter of the guts of an AT cartridge as compared to that of a current model Clearaudio.
Saying something is "fact" doesn't make it so.
By the way, I'm not saying outsourcing (which I don't think is the case here) doesn't happen. Nagaoka make cartridges which bear the Goldring name, while the budget Benz is made in its entirety by an unnamed factory in Japan.
Bear in mind Clearaudio make a number of cartridges, not just MM. Also, they've recently released a new MM line. You might also want to look at the links earlier in this thread which show cartridges being made at the Clearaudio facility.
Besides, no-one has yet posted photos or any evidence for that matter of the guts of an AT cartridge as compared to that of a current model Clearaudio.
Saying something is "fact" doesn't make it so.
By the way, I'm not saying outsourcing (which I don't think is the case here) doesn't happen. Nagaoka make cartridges which bear the Goldring name, while the budget Benz is made in its entirety by an unnamed factory in Japan.
marcmorin
RIP 1953-2020
The post just above yours tells you what "guts" are in the cartridge.....did you not read it, or are you just trying to be difficult?
It's a picture of an AT95E. I expect it to look like an AT95E. Do you think that provides proof?
Exactly. I have the new Clearaudio MM and an AT95E, and they don't appear to have much in common at all.
Given what the manufacturer (and the various links) show, it seems there's clear evidence to show Clearaudio do make their own stuff.
I'm not sure it matters to most of us ... I'm a fan of Clear Audio. I don't own their stuff due to price point and lack of availability in the used market here. But, that does not mean I don't appreciate what they do.
Sourcing parts from one, or more, companies is good business. It leverages economies of scale and reduces tooling costs. AT has patented technologies and they are making a return on that R&D. Who's getting hurt here? No one as far as I can see.
Just like Dr Benz when he left Empire. He had to source his stuff somewhere.
There are more than three bulk cartridge makers in Japan. Nagaoka, AT, and another I can't put my finger on. There are also three of four stylus houses. Most will sell you a stylus to fit your AT (or whatever). Do you think they only remarket?
I suspect they all collaborate and mount individual components like their own diamond design, or cut in parts from the other guys - at least some parts. Who'd want to tool up to set dual V magnets when AT will sell you a stub with the magnets set. You could then insert you own bonded tube extension and diamond, or have one of the other houses do it for you. Contract work. Done all the time, all over the world.
It's the sum of the parts and the design tuning that gets the final result.
And I'd take the speaker challenge. Say an MCS vs a Sony. That would be about as far apart as you could get in my modest SS collection. Warm and tuby, vs flat and analytic. If they all have to be current production gear, yeah sure they might all sound similar (integrated transistor packs and all that). But, if they allowed classic gear, I'm sure most of us could rise to that challenge. But who is going to pay to get both pieces benched and in perfect spec so that there is no weasel room on the outcome? That's about $500 where I come from. Then shipping and air fare, meals, lodging?
I'm guessing Harbeth won't cover the cost? So how's this supposed to work? Same for AT vs Clear Audio - who's going to pay for the costs of the tests under lab conditions? Me, I don't think so - I already know the answer. In my house with my speakers and my LPs, things are different - amp or cartridge or whatever. Jeez, I swapped enough gear in the last 5 years to know that easily. It's why I have a cartridge library. And one day I'll add a CA to the list (I already have enough AT's, thank you)
Sourcing parts from one, or more, companies is good business. It leverages economies of scale and reduces tooling costs. AT has patented technologies and they are making a return on that R&D. Who's getting hurt here? No one as far as I can see.
Just like Dr Benz when he left Empire. He had to source his stuff somewhere.
There are more than three bulk cartridge makers in Japan. Nagaoka, AT, and another I can't put my finger on. There are also three of four stylus houses. Most will sell you a stylus to fit your AT (or whatever). Do you think they only remarket?
I suspect they all collaborate and mount individual components like their own diamond design, or cut in parts from the other guys - at least some parts. Who'd want to tool up to set dual V magnets when AT will sell you a stub with the magnets set. You could then insert you own bonded tube extension and diamond, or have one of the other houses do it for you. Contract work. Done all the time, all over the world.
It's the sum of the parts and the design tuning that gets the final result.
And I'd take the speaker challenge. Say an MCS vs a Sony. That would be about as far apart as you could get in my modest SS collection. Warm and tuby, vs flat and analytic. If they all have to be current production gear, yeah sure they might all sound similar (integrated transistor packs and all that). But, if they allowed classic gear, I'm sure most of us could rise to that challenge. But who is going to pay to get both pieces benched and in perfect spec so that there is no weasel room on the outcome? That's about $500 where I come from. Then shipping and air fare, meals, lodging?
I'm guessing Harbeth won't cover the cost? So how's this supposed to work? Same for AT vs Clear Audio - who's going to pay for the costs of the tests under lab conditions? Me, I don't think so - I already know the answer. In my house with my speakers and my LPs, things are different - amp or cartridge or whatever. Jeez, I swapped enough gear in the last 5 years to know that easily. It's why I have a cartridge library. And one day I'll add a CA to the list (I already have enough AT's, thank you)
dodog
Addicted Member
I emailed Clearaudio a while back asking about affiliation with AT:
I got this response back the other day:
They neither confirm NOR deny that they may use AT parts and the response, to me, is ambiguous. This proves nothing, either way, but I thought I'd share their response.
I got this response back the other day:
They neither confirm NOR deny that they may use AT parts and the response, to me, is ambiguous. This proves nothing, either way, but I thought I'd share their response.