Ortofon Cadenza Bronze or...?

Mike said:
Mike - I don't use anti skate. It was my understanding that Harry didn't believe in it for his tables. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
ive owned a scout, aries, tnt and a classic all with jmw arms and i never hooked up the antiskate on any of them. i dont remember the aries as even having one, but that was a long time ago and the original model, i could be wrong. tried it a couple times but didnt like it.

asindc said:
I'm surprised that the arm does not come with a nice storage box. That is something VPI should think about offering, if only as a separate option if need be.
Click to expand...
thats a good thought, i had a spare 12" vpi armtube on a past table and i could never find the right cool box to make it a home, i ended up with a similar liquor bottle box like mike made but had to cut out one side as the weight stuck out the back.
i had a stand i built for it but when someone almost knocked into it i decided a box was the way to go. seemed safer.
 
Mark Jones said:
I have never understood this no anti-skate idea, I feel its absolutely required, but I guess to each their own.
Click to expand...

on my ortofon arm the antiskate is a dial. i twist it and try it at different settings but when at just a hair above zero it seems at its best.
the vpi has a weird piece of thin fishing line and a little L shaped pivot. if not set right the arm wont go all the way to the end of the album , i found out the hard way.lol.
 
Mark Jones said:
I have never understood this no anti-skate idea, I feel its absolutely required, but I guess to each their own.
Click to expand...
The way that I understand it regarding Harry's thoughts with his arms, is that the anti-skating force provided by the cable loop going to the connection box is sufficient and sounds better than adding additional force with the pivoted mechanism that is now provided. So it's not that there should be no anti-skating force, but that he recommends not using the additional mechanism which is only provided for users that prefer to have a more traditional adjustable mechanism.
 
audio.bill said:
The way that I understand it regarding Harry's thoughts with his arms, is that the anti-skating force provided by the cable loop going to the connection box is sufficient and sounds better than adding additional force with the pivoted mechanism that is now provided. So it's not that there should be no anti-skating force, but that he recommends not using the additional mechanism which is only provided for users that prefer to have a more traditional adjustable mechanism.
Click to expand...

This is how I understand the use of Antiskate with the Classic arm.

I have now disengaged the AS mechanism while running the Mono cart. I'll have to try the same when I flop back over to the Bronze too. If it's not needed then that saves me a step when swapping arm wands which would be cool.
 
MikeCh said:
This is how I understand the use of Antiskate with the Classic arm.

I have now disengaged the AS mechanism while running the Mono cart. I'll have to try the same when I flop back over to the Bronze too. If it's not needed then that saves me a step when swapping arm wands which would be cool.
Click to expand...
Mike - If you end up choosing to run with the A/S mechanism disengaged for both of your setups, I would suggest removing the pivoted assembly and the related ring on the back of the arm entirely. There would be no need to have these additional pieces in place when they might resonate and affect the arm's performance.
 
Thanks for the tip Bill. Will do if I can get by with only the Lemo wire-twist. It may be that I remove the ring from the Mono arm wand only, but I'll check the Bronze setup soon and deal accordingly.

As I was explaining to Steve on the phone earlier today, when I had the Dynavector 20X2H mounted prior to the Bronze, the lemo wire-twist thing was either too little or too much AS so I opted for the too-little and went with the additional AS mechanism adjustment. To be honest, I just left it the same with the Bronze initially then I jumped on the Mono bandwagon and haven't gone back to the Bronze. But I will and when I do, I'll double check using AS or no.

It may just end up that I can bypass the mechanical AS altogether for both arms and if so, I'll remove the rings + monofilament line as well the AS L arm.
 
MikeCh said:
This cartridge is stunning!

I thought the Bronze was a quiet tracker with the mono records (and it really is, but)...the Mono specific Cadenza is in a whole other league for quiet tracking of mono LP's.

I've always read that a true mono cartridge is best to play mono records but thought I could just get by with stereo cartridges. Nope. So glad I made the move to go with a mono cartridge and separate arm wand.

Looking forward to how it will sound in 20 or so more LP's!

attachment.php



View attachment 6393View attachment 6394
Click to expand...
so mike, hows this mono after a few weeks with it?? still as good as your initial thoughts?? right now im scouring through 8000 pages of mono records on discogs, and once i find 10 or 15 i want i will probably order one of these. i been toying with the idea for several months and between the reports from you and jeff on this cartridge i think i need to try one.
 
Petro85 said:
so mike, hows this mono after a few weeks with it?? still as good as your initial thoughts?? right now im scouring through 8000 pages of mono records on discogs, and once i find 10 or 15 i want i will probably order one of these. i been toying with the idea for several months and between the reports from you and jeff on this cartridge i think i need to try one.
Click to expand...

Hi Steve,

The Mono cart is working out very well! I have to admit that I've not been getting a lot of listening done lately (summer is busy around here!) so only have fourteen LP's listened to at this point.

I'd say the break in with the Mono is less drastic than the Bronze (and the Bronze wasn't all that drastic to begin with) but I have noticed a little change to the smoother as it's starting to settle into its stride. It tracks like a champ (like the Bronze) and is wonderfully dynamic too...and as mentioned earlier, it's really quiet even on not so pristine mono records. As an example, some Al Hirt RCA's I have that look to the eye like they have a million little paper sleeve scratches just sound fantastic.

I think you'd really like this cart Steve!
 
thanks it is in the plan for the very near future. whole point of me keeping the ortofon arm and not upgrading to the triplanar was so i could do quick changes for multiple carts and headshells. oh and the $6k pricetag of the triplanar.lol.
hope to be breaking one in, in the next few weeks.
 
Update: The Ortofon Cadenza Bronze is simply fantastic. That is all.
 
What is the mass and compliance of the Cadenza Bronze? Thx
 
cmalak said:
What is the mass and compliance of the Cadenza Bronze? Thx
Click to expand...

Hi Cyril,

From the Ortofon web site:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Technical data

Output voltage at 1000 Hz, 5cm/sec.0,4 mV
Channel balance at 1 kHz< 1 dB
Channel separation at 1 kHz> 24 dB
Channel separation at 15 kHz> 20 dB
Frequency range at - 3dB20 - 55 kHz
Frequency response 20 Hz - 20 kHz+/-1,5
Tracking ability at 315Hz at recommended tracking force *)80 µm
Compliance, dynamic, lateral12 µm/mN
Stylus typeNude Ortofon Replicant on conical alu cantilever
Stylus tip radiusr/R 5/100 µm
Tracking force range2,2-2,7 g (22-27 mN)
Tracking force, recommended2,5 g (25 mN)
Tracking angle23°
Internal impedance, DC resistance5 Ohm
Recommended load impedance50-200 Ohm
Cartridge body materialStainless steel / Aluminium
Cartridge colourBronze/Black
Cartridge weight10,7 gram

[TD="width: 50%"] [/TD]
 
Thanks Mike. I should have just looked it up myself. Appreciate you doing it :thumbsup:
 
Just calculated the resonance frequency of the Cadenza Bronze with my Graham 2.2 and it's 9.85 Hz which is smack in the middle of the target range of (8-12 Hz), so from cart and tonearm matching perspective seems like a good fit. And the 0.4 mV output mated to the 62dB gain in the BPS when set for MC carts, yields a 5V output so no issues with cart output and phono gain. I will keep this one on my radar screen. Enjoy Mike and Mike.
 
cmalak said:
Just calculated the resonance frequency of the Cadenza Bronze with my Graham 2.2 and it's 9.85 Hz which is smack in the middle of the target range of (8-12 Hz), so from cart and tonearm matching perspective seems like a good fit. And the 0.4 mV output mated to the 62dB gain in the BPS when set for MC carts, yields a 5V output so no issues with cart output and phono gain. I will keep this one on my radar screen. Enjoy Mike and Mike.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a great match Cyril.

Let us know what you decide! The Bronze is fun to listen to for sure.
 
Hello,
New to this forum and this thread has been of interest; I currently have a Classic 3 with two arm wands; a Cadenza Bronze on one and a Delos on the other. I run the Classic with Manley Snappers/Shrimp and a Herron VTPH-2. The Bronze sounds excellent with the majority of my vinyl; at times I am looking for a little more detail and speed, which I can get with the Delos, but in my system, with a degree of sacrifice in weight and sound stage depth. I was debating going with a Cadenza Black or a Kleos, or open to any other suggestions in this price range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top