When companies begin to produce crap (most of the today arms) then it is the job of various marketing whores, like Michael Fremer and the similar, to invert a theory that would justify the poor sonic results or to explain to the deaf audio-cretins out there that “it is how it should be”.

I do know, Alex, the way how you approach the entire subject is very alien to me, at least I absolutely do not think in this way. An arm should be an arm and a cartridge should be a cartridge. A cartridge should have own sound and it is fine. The arm should not be in the picture at all and should not be even considered from sonic perspective at all (because it should do what it need to do and it is all)

I know a lot of people out there would degree with me but they are cluelessly jaded. The Morons year over year were “educated” that there is some kind of compatibility between arm’s effective mass and cartridge’s compliance. Sure, that compatibility and that logic dose make sense but ONLY in context of initially crappy arms and initially crappy cartridges. When the Audio industry move toward the under-massed tonearms and overly light cartridges then the Propaganda Morons begin to stress the bogus notion of cartridge/arm interface. To “match” cartridge/arm is very useful in order to achieve that strategically-contemporary “stiff sound”, the sound that is  particularly benefited by the contemporary ported enclosures. I recognize is a part of the larger picture:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3520

Anyhow, the truth, at least the truth as I agree to perceive it, is that a tonearm should undependably “to sound well”, regardless of anything else. That “abstract” state of proper sound usually takes please with heavy arm of effective mass of 25-40g, or 2-3 times heavier then the most of the today’s arms (let not even to go into the subject of horizontal effective mass).  From there you put into a properly sound arm  your uniquely sounding cartridge and it is it. The compliance of cartridge does not exist. I mean all cartages have more or less the same compliance and all of them need 2-3 times heavier arm’s driving mass then the stupid circulation of resonant frequency suggests. (Fs = 1000/[6.28*square root (M*C)]).  There are some exceptions – but the supper stiff or supper soft cartridge should be trashed and not to be used to begin with.

…. it is well known that do not consult on purchasing decisions, just have no interests and no motivations even to think about it. Also, frankly speaking I sick and tired to hear those questions: what speakers to buy, what amplifiers to buy, what cartridge to buy, what records cleaner to buy … I do not mean to be rude but who cares what you buy? I do not think even you care….

Anyhow, regardless which cartridge you decided to use, be advised that SME M2 arm is not exactly fits my description of “neutral” and “properly made” arms. It rather is on the side of many contemporary “expedited” arms. This particular arms has in addition it’s own idiosyncrasies….… BTW, I am not saying it is bad arm. I just say that it is not as neutral as it should be….

I would think that one would opt at least for a cartridge able to distinguish between different violins (well) recorded in different spaces.  Although aural memory itself remains suspect, still one does want to entertain an illusion based on one's ability to "recognize" a given performance based on certain aural cues and, perhaps and/or to a point, the more cues the better.

OTOH, one never knows if or rather when certain "flaws" in playback may begin to strain credibility, clouding or shattering the illusion.

I enjoyed the "musicality of the Sonata until its sibilance and subsonic hijinks ruined it for me.

So few shared ways to describe sound; can you say what you hear/like/prefer from the Benz?

My present Ortofon MC 3000 II acts/sounds much like the master tape an LP is cut from, and its "neutrality" has pleased me; but it is also a trifle removed from the event, and if I could remedy this, I would, as it has finally started to bother me.

Meanwhile, who wants details at the expense of "connectedness"?

Who wants "vitality" or "immediacy" with no orientation or without respect to pitch, timbre, weight and scale?

It seems like most "high-end" cartridges are based on drama, per se, via proprietary manipulation/highlighting of certain aspects of the recorded fare, which in turn "brings home" a particular sense of a performance.

The annoying thing is that one's speakers and one's cartridge will always be "colored" and/or will in various ways effect their own verisons of recorded music, so it's always a matter of picking one's poison and then trying to integrate the parts into a whole that against all odds produces something one finds musically meaningful.

I recently read for the first time Romy's remark to the effect that there is absolutely no difference between one's demands of live versus recorded music.  So true.  Of course this does not mean - at all - that one's playback ever "sounds the same" as the original live performance...

Best regards,
Paul S

The New Jersey Symphony purchased a number of high priced instruments - Strads, Guanaris, etc. in what they called "The Golden Collection".  They paid way too much money for the collection, but thought that the better sound and the "Mystique" of all those multi-million dollar instruments would bring in ticket sales like never before.  The reality of it is that the orchestra sounded exactly the same as they did before.  No one I spoke to could tell the difference between the previous insruments played and the high priced spread. I say there is no such thing as "correctness"..just various levels of "betterness".  Clearly the Benz is better than the Grado to these ears, and anyone who has knowledge of my system before and after the Benz swapout.  You pays yo money and gets your pleasure.  For me, as I described the cartridge is at many levels, better in many ways than the Grado.  I also have the Dynavector DRT XV1S.  My tonearm is a JMW Memorial VPI Signature which has interchangeable arm wands.  I can easily swap arms into a perfect setup.  In some ways the Dynavector is better intellectually than the Ebony, but for some reason, I find myself listening to the Benz more.  Go figure...

Stringreen wrote:

The New Jersey Symphony purchased a number of high priced instruments - Strads, Guanaris, etc. in what they called "The Golden Collection".  They paid way too much money for the collection, but thought that the better sound and the "Mystique" of all those multi-million dollar instruments would bring in ticket sales like never before.  The reality of it is that the orchestra sounded exactly the same as they did before.  No one I spoke to could tell the difference between the previous insruments played and the high priced spread. I say there is no such thing as "correctness"..just various levels of "betterness".  Clearly the Benz is better than the Grado to these ears, and anyone who has knowledge of my system before and after the Benz swapout.  You pays yo money and gets your pleasure.  For me, as I described the cartridge is at many levels, better in many ways than the Grado.  I also have the Dynavector DRT XV1S.  My tonearm is a JMW Memorial VPI Signature which has interchangeable arm wands.  I can easily swap arms into a perfect setup.  In some ways the Dynavector is better intellectually than the Ebony, but for some reason, I find myself listening to the Benz more.  Go figure...

I do not know why you say “Go figure” as the conclusions are very obvious and very much on surface.

Some active elements of playback have something that I usually call the “absolute tone”.  I covered this subject in very many posts on my site:

(For instance here: http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=2784 )

Here is juts a quote from the mentioned post:

“The “absolute tone” is the absolute maximum of tonal complexity that a playback is capable to reproduces. It is like a violin. If we take for instance Amatis, Stradivaris or Guarneris then they might indicate a quality of “absolute tone”. It does not necessary mean that they under all conditions have better tone than some other best violins but under good conditions they are capable to throw insultingly high (or interesting) tonal quality that might not be reached by “other” violins (particularly in ambient conditions). This absolute maximin amplitude of the “tonal sophistication” is not reachable by some "other" instruments, no mater what you do to them and how skillful players might be. The very same is with loudspeakers. They all have their “absolute tone” limitations. The audio people mostly do not consider them because the 99% of loudspeakers are “absolute tone” impotent. We do not really know where the “absolute tone capacity” derives from and audio engineers never cared to answer this question. Perhaps it is in materials or in design principles but I feel it rather in a sense of recognition and assessing of results – something that never was research seriously in audio.”

The key in there is the message: under special circumstances to produce tonal quality that might not be reached by others violins at the best circumstances. This is what I call “absolute tone” – or the amplitude of own maximum. Sure, each cartridge has own “absolute tone”, amplifiers do not have it – cartridges, drivers and orchestras do. Grado are good cartridges but their “absolute tone” is always was very simple. Evan at the best conditions Grado, doing wonderfully in hi-fi terms have that “absolute tone impotency” that sets all Grado efforts to the…. sound of the New Jersey Symphony. Grado is perfectly capable to convert tone of Prague Philharmonic into the tone of Cleveland Symphony and the sound of the old Budapest Quartet or the Hollywood Quartet into the Sound as a band for Berkley School of Music…..

Well, I do not know the New Jersey Symphony well, I heard a few recordings and it was quite bad, including “absolute tonally”. I generally very welcome a news that they got the "The Golden Collection" – it might not effect their sound as now (tone is not juts the quality of the instrument as you know) but in the long run, perhaps a generation from now it this collection of the better instruments might lead to better sound, or at least what we all hope…

Stringreen wrote:

My opionion is that there is no absolute tone - just as there isn't an absolute sound.

Stringreen wrote:

I personally am especially sensitive to dynamics - big and small.  I therefore choose a high power amp and speakers that can accomodate that for my personal preferences.  My friend has an equally expensive stereo system  built on low wattage tubes. I don't much care for his system, but his satisfies him....he finds fault with my system, with which I like very much.  Some people prefer Mercedes, some people buy BMW's...  You open your check book and vote.

Stringreen wrote:

Indeed I do know that high wattage does not necessarily mean that accurate dynamic shadings are successfully reproduced, however, I will tell you that my high power amps do the job well, and his tubes do not. ??

Stringreen wrote:

A fault in my system is that the these dynamics become truthful only when the volume is increased to a particular loudness level...not loud mind you, but certainly not background music level.  This volume level is not a function of the volume control which at the "reality level" points to 7 o clock, 9 o clock, 1 o clock depending on the source feeding the preamp.  Also, I am not talking of canon shots, thunder, or A-bomb explosions...  ??

Stringreen wrote:

Regarding your last thought about the wonderful instruments .....I would rather hear a wonderful performance on a supermarket instrument than a good performance on a Strad.  This brings up what a wonderful performance is....   Check out 2 Tchaikovsky violin concerts...  Heifitz and  Bell.  What touches your soul?? ??

If you do not know this performance you might find my comments at:

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?postID=408#408