Cartridge Reviews

File 1 is the blue
File 2 has better bass so AT
I THINK:)

I prefer File 1. I suspect it's the Blue

I am not sure I have a favorite which is really weird because both sound so different. File 1 sounds more "audiophile" to be sure. It has more HF extension, more definition. File 2 however has a mellow (warm) sound which I could easily live with especially if I had lots of recordings that could benefit from a softer presentation.

I guess I will have to wait for the big reveal next week - but if I had to guess - I'd say File 1 is the Audio Technica with its more advanced styli.

A profound difference. File 1 takes you there. File 2 is flat and lifeless.

...has more and tactile bass extension, a lot more detail and wider soundstage. I hope it´s the Blue, because it´s the upgrade I´ll like to do from my Red... File 2 sounds sweeter but less detailed, "uniform", with less contrasts and color...

I thought File 1 sounded brighter and more illuminated but File 2 had better Bass and tone

I think File 1 was AT and File 2 Ortofon?

Cartridge "1" produces a higher output and is louder - and louder cartridges always sound inherently better. Because of the lower output volume cartridge "2" appears to be flat and lifeless. But that does not necessarily say anything about playback quality.

A fair comparison of the two cartridges would have included a normalization of both files, which had not taken place here.

I love these experiments! I have the blue and love it so I should be able to tell the difference, yet I really can't with any confidence. Humbling but fun. So here's my guess. I put both files into Logic pro, with no changes other then raising File 2 by +3 db to better match the levels. File 1 sounds more open and transparent but maybe not as refined in the upper mids. After raising the level of File 2 even by the minor +3 db it becomes a bit more nuanced in comparison. Just a little sweeter in the top end but not as much force and punch as file 1. So...drum roll... I think File one is the AT and file 2 is the Blue. Let the games begin!

I normalized both files in Sony Sound Forge, 1 was decreased and 2 was increased slightly. 1 has more HF extention and slightly more open. Both had decent HF extension out to 12.7 khz, but 1 had more vol at this region.

Ones choice may be decided by your speakers or cans being brighter or more mellow. I could live with either. Now you are at the point of which one mates better with this particular phono stage.

I always love these shoot-outs. I just did my own with an artist's song in 4 formats, LP, CD, 88.2khz download, and the SACD version. More science projects to look at the effects of EQ/Mastering and HF extension. Great fun.

File1 is definitely brighter Than file2 but if I was having to listen To music (classical) for a long time file2 would be much easier on the ears to me and more like a live concert. My first time to a live classical concert my first question was where are all the hi’s. My friend just looked at me and grinned ! it sure changed my outlook on recorded music.

I prefer File 2. File 1 sounds more detailed, but 2 is fuller and warmer.

File 2 is brighter on top listening through my Monsoon planar computer speakers. And it brings the top end notes more forward compared to the rest of the frequency spectrum. The presentation is harsher as well. File 1's presentation is not as bright, and has a more cohesive presentation.

I will listen to these both without A/Bing soon, so I can get an overall sense of the performances rendered by each.

I'm also reminded of a conversation with Harry Weisfeld in which he said that not all cartridges mate as sonically well with certain arms. For example, the famed Denon DL-103 Weisfeld thinks sounds great with certain arms and just okay with others. So what we're hearing is how it sounds through whatever you're listening through, on THIS particular tonearm.

File 2 has a hair longer sustain on the cymbal crash and very satisfying bass. At first I thought that file 1 was a little harsh on the highs but that was because I needed to turn up the volume on file 2. At equal volume levels the second file wins due to the better bass. Great Track By the way.

neither sounds any good!

I have no idea which is which, but I know I like #2 much better. To me, #1 is far to brittle in the highs. Those trumpets are way too bright for me, even sounding more like computer generated sounds than real trumpets. And the highest organ notes poke out for their equally bright, brittle sound. Far more realistic to my ears is #2. It's warmer, more natural and realistic. Much better bass, in my opinion, though admittedly a bit more muddy. I could not listen long to #1. Whereas, repeated plays of #2 don't tax my ears nearly as much. Just an opinion from someone who sits in front of a live orchestra 5-6 days a week.

like either.Therefore, could not discern which was better.
File one was overly bright and file two was grey and dynamic.
My Highly modified AT95VL would leave both for dead :)

Ok, so some people try to guess which is which, but that's not what Michael asked. He asked which file we prefer, 1 or 2.
That's is soooo difficult.
They both sound excellent to my ears, with excellent stereo. So much depends on the amplifier and speakers as well, so I'd say it is very difficult come to a final conclusion of which file sounds best.

I'll listen to them for a while and then post my preference.

Is definitely a bit bright. # 2 on the other hand has a nicer tone a bit warmer.So i prefer #2. Couldn't say which is which.

File 2 has better bass, better detail, and tracks a bit better. I'd say File 2 is Audio-Technica. File 1 is Ortofon.

file 1 sounds more detailed but exaggerated and bright. file 2 sounds more natural. I guess file 1 is Audio Technica and file 2 is Ortofon.

I have a mild preference for file 1. But mainly it is just nice to hear that piece again.

I have a mild preference for file 1 too. I suppose it is AT and file 2 is Ortofon.

File 2 sounds a little better put together, perhaps a touch more open in the highs, it had me feeling that File 1 sounded a bit artificial by comparison. The harpsichord in file2 sounded sweeter. I thought File 1 was better at conveying a sense of drama in the opening sequence however.

I say file 1 is AT

My top-end hearing is weak due to age, which must make a difference, and I don't put a lot of priority on tonal balance. Overall, I prefered the sound of File 2 - I thought I was hearing more subtlety of detail, and better defined notes.

First , I normalized each file in Audacity. File two was about 1.7 dB below file one. I amplified 2 by 1.7 dB before listening.

Second, I have recorded a fair number of Organ performances and have heard even more live. File two sounded much more like an organ to my ears and the brass was more natural. I had to force myself to listen all the way through File 1.

It's easy to assume that the higher level file was the 2M Blue, which has the higher output. I hope not, since I have a 2M Blue.

File #1 : it struggles with trumpets, lacks scale, weird timing. But not bad.
File #2 : smooth, tonally coherent, natural bass extension, all is well tied and organized, very relaxing and relaxed analogue sound, very natural focus. Could be more luminous but not in this price range.

I prefer #1 which has more highs and sounds more open. While this might read as strident to some, it sounds more articulate to me, translating to better stereo image and more detailed reverb tails. Bass seems about the same to my ear.

file1 more in your face file 2 more subtle. I liked both and I suspect file 2 would make me listen more even though it was less immediate.

File one seems to be the Ortofon Blue. Die one sounds like it has higher output and channel separation which align with the specs. It’s also my preference, but can definitely see those who prefer a more subtle approach enjoying file 2 which I think is the AT. I’m not in this camp so my preference is file 1. I leave toward the POW of transients with “attack” and a wide soundstage.

OK so I thought my original comments (Which Cartridge) were slanted due to my listening at work with headphones. At home (Meridian Explorer DAC, NAD receiver and Vandersteen 2C's only reinforced that both versions are pretty bad, although file 2 is marginally better. It may be the source material but neither file has a pleasing sound. I may be I'm jaded by normally listening to first gen tapes of organ music, the fact the I really don't like the sound of Baroque tracker organs, and that I was never really impressed by E. 'Powerful' Biggs. A better choice would have been "Pomp and Pipes" (Reference Recordings") even on 44.1 kHz CD. I'd be glad to send you a snippet of what a pipe organ should sound like.

But file 1 was louder, so indicative of the higher output Ortofon with more signal. Regardless, I liked it better. I think it would have been a better comparison if the used gain on the phonostage was better matched. Adding some gain to the cartridge used in file 2 may have swayed me to it. I personally think the test is flawed in the manner. If we are to truly test the two cartridges, it should be used with a similar input into the amplification. This is all about matching gear, and using the same gain setting on cartridges with different outputs is unfair. And the VM95ML outputs 3.5mV not the purported 4.5mV.

File one was louder as has been mentioned and I didn’t try to match them but file 2 sounded the more natural, 1 was a bit too etched. I listened to both and then the first half of each again but though file one was better the second time around, either because of familiarity or the streamer warming up a bit, file 2 still won on a more natural tone and pacing.

Has MF reveled which is which yet? I prefer File 2 over File 1.

File 2 is smoother with deeper bass and better bass control. It doesn't seem as punchy as File 1, but it has more finesse.

Having a AT-VM540ML, I believe that File 1 is the Audio Technica -- a shade on the bright side of neutral, and I think it shows, particularly at the end.

If I were to make an analogy (and I do), File 1 is akin to a young musician, eager to play and full of energy, albeit, somewhat lacking in control. File 2 is much like an experienced musician who could, and quite possibly is, playing in his sleep. File 1 has more liveliness whereas File 2 is more polished. File 2 with a bit more liveliness would be great!

It should be a given that most 1960s & 1970s Columbia US pressings are not exactly Audiophile delights.... they are however often good examples of good performances widely available at low prices vinyl that might be likely to be played on sub $300 cartridges....

My ears thought:
File 1 initially sounded more "exciting", but rapidly moved to fatiguing, too bright and edgy, harsh sounding.
File two initially was dull sounding by comparison but it rapidly sounded more natural and less fatiguing. Better overall balance and more organic, less edgy.

Due to space constraints I use a subwoofer as a footstool at my computer workstation. My ankles tell me file two has better deep bass. :-)

I enjoyed File #2 more. The horns sounded more realistic, and there was more nuance to the organ notes. In fact, File #1 sounded edgy, almost like a CD from the early 1980s. It will be interesting to find out which file corresponds to which cartridge, as I have an AQ AT-VM95SH on the bedroom system. From what I can glean, it's basically the same as the AT-VM95ML, but with a Shibata stylus.

File 1 gives a greater sense of immediacy and vivacity on my Fiil headphones. File 2 sounds more like being at a regular live performance and is less tiring to listen to.

I prefer File 1. Greater clarity and extension. I did adjust level as File 1 has more gain. In direct comparison, File 2 sounds a bit muffled. I would not characterize this file as "warm" because there are sounds that are much harder to discern on this file compared to File 1. However I did not listen to each file to completion. I went back and forth for about the first minute of each file. I do not know how my opinion would (or would not) change over an extended listening period. From this comparison, it should be apparent that a budget minded listener needs to carefully balance each component to achieve the best possible sound.

... So I prefer File 2. File 1 at first appears to have a fuller sound, but eventually gets tiring. File 1 sounds like an older record, too. File 2 does sound a bit muffled in direct comparison but when we go back to File 1 it sounds hysterical (from hysteria, not by making us laugh). so File 2 it is!

What's with the ghastly track? Gigout? Really?? Actually, this composition might be better than his Toccata, but Gigout is on my personal "hopefully will be forgotten" list. The first track would be the Blue, unless Mikey boosted the AT's level enough to confuse. Hearing these cartridges made me glad I have a couple of V15vxmr's for my MM collection, but in fairness I couldn't even begin to assess what might've been good qualities in either of these because of the ghastly music. Mr. Fremer, did you pick this track because no one cares about any copyrights on it? It's really gawdawful. I can think of several of his French contemporaries that would have made for better listening and sonic comparison, e.g., Saint-Saens, Debussy, Faure, et cetera.

I know well these two cartridges.
And after extensive listening, I prefer by very far the VM95ML.
more colours and body, more natural, better tracking on difficult records.
For me, there isn't even a match.
But on a short listening, it is possible to prefer the other.

I know this music but I'm only aware of it on cd, where did you get an LP of this? is it still available to the general public or is it unobtanium? Is it only available to luminaries such as stereophile journos such as MF?

File #1 sounds more alive than file #2 and more clear. But I'd wish that there was something else to listen to than what was played. I'm a more rock, blues and jazz listener than horn symphony style music. I prefer more strings than horns.

i preferred file 1 for my ear’s as file 2 sounded muddy

After giving each three listens, number 1 have bolder midrange. Number 2 was good, but not as good as one.

I have often visited Durham Cathedral which has one of the UK's least resonant structures and one of its best organs. To me, track 1 got nearer to the sort of sound that I hear in there, but both are rather strident, perhaps due to the digitisation process. Track 2 is smoother, but less spacious.

Was there ever a follow up to identify which cartridge produced which track?

Someone please direct me to the answer to this fantastic shoot out. I cannot find it. Thanks!