Both systems have been fully set up, and I have recorded test audio from various records (pop, piano solo, quartet).

The below analysis of the recorded audio was made after consulting our resident expert in perceptual testing. A key point that was emphasized was that we should first set up the 2 systems, and listen to the audio. If we ourselves could tell the difference, then the test is too easy: we should increase the difficulty of the task (i.e., replace components in the signal chain with "better" devices).

My initial impression was that the difference between the 2 systems was quite obvious in 2 regards: overall loudness (advantage: expensive), and brightness (advantage: cheaper). The first of these can be somewhat reduced using the Steelhead front panel controls, reducing the output gain from 55 -> 50 dB, and increasing the load from 50 -> 100 ohms.

Once this was done, samples were re-recorded, and the second of these 2 issues was still a problem. While I have used the term "brightness", it is as much of a HF emphasis that can be heard in the less expensive setup, as it is a mid-range emphasis that is heard in the more expensive setup. Note that I am not making a judgment of the quality of either representation, but rather just a comparison between the 2 systems, which is quite obvious from even the first listening. If we plan to present these 2 versions to listeners, the difference may be too obvious, and perhaps we should be looking for a more apt comparison.

That said, I decided to try to identify the contribution of each component in both systems to the overall sound. First, I recorded samples of the less expensive system using the cables that were originally connecting the more expensive setup. No difference. Next I referred to the RIAA error charts. The Steelhead does have a greater mid-range boost than the GSP preamp. Perhaps this was the cause? So I connected the output of the HR-X to the GSP. The result still sounded like the original output of the more expensive setup. So the only remaining factors are the turntable or cartridge (most likely) itself.

To truly test these, we will need to either swap cartridges on the turntables, or accept that the cartridge comparison that we are making is too discernible.

Audio examples for the above conditions are available upon request.

We are presently preparing a listening test of 2 full systems--expensive and moderate. These systems are comprised of the following pieces of gear:

1. expensive: VPI HR-X turntable, Manley Steelhead Preamp, and Ortofon Kontrapunkt a
2. moderate: VPI Aries 2, GSP Jazz Club, and Ortofon OM20

Each setup is then fed into the analog inputs of the PrismSound ADA-8XR, and recorded using Logic 7 on a Mac G5 in 24-bit 96 kHz digital audio.

According to several reviews of the Kontrapunkt a, optimal sound is achieved after a number of hours of listening (many reviews state 10+ hourse are adequate, and some accounts list >100 hours!), so we are currently working towards this goal (we have also made a recording with the fresh cartridge for a potential later comparison).

More news soon...

J, Atkinson RIAA error

J. Atkinson of Stereophile has graciously provided us with his code for a RIAA measurement from 10Hz-100kHz. Our current RIAA measure only goes from 20Hz-20kHz because our RIAA deemphasis curve is limited to these values. Thank you Mr. Atkinson! We will test this once back from Utrecht/Athens.