I lately look at the noise created around the Shelter cartridges and I wonder what is going on. Shelter was doing wonderful cartridges, more or less responsibly priced and people use it for years. Bunch of the typical industry scams in past did their dirty things to Shelter cartridges, those stories are well-know and the Shelter cartridges, like the Energizer’s Bunny, were keep running. I’m personally since 1999 in love with my 901. Now the second 901 finishes its last hours on my TT and the third 901 is sitting in a box ready to jump into the game, that it will be certainly doing soon.

A year or two ago a new name in the Shelter family is emerged: Shelter 90X. Before Shelter did not give a damn about the existence of American audio propaganda and all out typical audio-vampires did not any dip into the Shelter’s destitutions (with the exaction of the famous stories).  We kept buying it in Japan directly and showed a big middle finger to all audio industry hoodlums.

Suddenly, since the Shelter 90X become available the dealer of the Shelter 90X become to pop up like the mushrooms after a rain and the each audio publication begin to push the 90X more aggressively then they push the cheesy-naked women on their advertising pages.

Well, I thought that perhaps Shelter got a new proactive US distributor of something else was going on. A friend of mine (who sold the Shelters before and after the boom) was at the time in Japan and I asked him to enquirer about the 90X. He was told me that he Japanese associates expanded him that the 90X was the Shelter 901 cartridges that was explicitly produced for US market ($1500 more expansive), than it has the very same motor, needle and suspension and it has only some non-imperative, primary cosmetic differences.

Then the reviews and the privet comments came form the 90X user who swear that the 90X is a “major leap for mankind” form the 901.  Well, I would like not to speculate and it is possible that 90X is way better cartridges but when I try to interpret what people say to me about the 90X I detect some inconsistencies.

For instance to take a lucid review from someone calling himself JerryS (I have no idea who is he)

http://www.10audio.com/shel_90x.htm

Jerry says about the 90X:

“the performance at both frequency extremes far outperforms even the Rosewood Signature Platinum”

Well, the Koetsu Rosewood NEVER was a good performer in any of the extremes. So why JerryS suddenly brings it up?

Or for instance Jerry says:

“The 90x has the very neutral overall tonal balance of the Shelter 501. It relates to the great bass and excellent treble extension of the 901. The 90x leaves these two siblings behind in several important areas. The midrange does not sound at all disconnected from the lower midrange and treble as it can with the 901”

….and further on:

 “But the biggest improvement over the 901 is not just the complete integration of the midrange into the rest of the audio spectrum – the major weakness of the 901”

Well, again. Jerry is using the Graham 2.2 tonearm that generally is very discolored at midrange. Does Jerry confuse the “integration of the midrange into the rest of the audio spectrum” with a discolored midrange by the silicone suspended Graham?  There is one more important thing: I heard much exuberant comments about the Shelters 501, 901 and 90X from many audio people but I always was superiors about their cheerfulness. They all use this Shelters with the very light contemporary arms and I NEVER was able to get out of the Shelters fine sound using the arms of 12-18g. In order to let my Shelters 901 to begin to work more or less noble I loaded my 3012 with 16-23g of extra mass making it over 25g (actually I like it when it dose 32g). When I ran the 901 cartridges at the 12g of the 3012 default mass then I did have that “disconnection of everything”.  Now, Jerry said that the 90X is taller and heavier… so I am wondering…

There are very similar moments in any single review or in a single privet comment that I head about the 90X cartridge....

However, the biggest problems that I experience from all people who love to do not like today the 901 and to admirer 90X is the fact that none of them (NONE!) when the 90X was not available ever complained about the problems with 901. No one was saying at that time that 901 had problems with midrange integration or not sufficient LF, HF or anything like this. How came that the 90X has all of that better?

Does it mean that they were clueless how a cartridge should sound while they evaluated the 901? If they were clueless during that time then what changed since then in their evaluation expertise?

Anyhow, considering that this idiotic industry do not facilitate to the end users an ability to audition the cartridges then I wonder how to get more or less objective information about cartridges, or about the 90X for instance. Are any of the readers if my site could share your thoughts on the 90X? It is quite possible that the 90X is a different and better cartridge but I would like to hear a responsibly rational comment about it.

...simpler...

Yes, I heard 90x multiple times in the diverse systems but it was never possible to make any judgment about 90x as the systems always were inadequate. I got feelings what 90x’s sound is all about. Mostly got the feelings from the feedback of the multiple 90x users correlating their reaction with thier own listening preferences, conditionings, the specifics of their systems and thier exposure to some other analog alternatives. The 90x should be a fine cartridge and particularly for a person who has one arm and one cartridge.

I’m personally not planning to pursuit the 90x as I have no use for it: if I need the full capacity of a stereo record then the 901 dose it juts fine. If I need to glorify stereo sound, make it more lush and less “techi” then I have Koetsu or Ortofon @ the mono domain. Also, my phonostages with thier idiosyncrasies are pared with thier arms and cartridges and I have no reasons to make any changes.

 I kind of understand what they tried to accomplish with the 90x. I am not quite sure now but it is possible that in context of everything else the 90x was a step back. I just propose it as a suggestion and I would not argue the subject. I do not see a lot of people to argue. I never heard any installation out there that would be able to fully handle what 901 could do. Whatever I systems with 901 I’ve heard they all where too week for the 901 output. So, today some people replace the 901 with 90x and suggest that 90x sound “more musical”. Is it “musical” or the 90x is juts generally slower and less bandwidth cartridge that is "more suitable" for the poor or limited installations?

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

starboy wrote:

I decided recently to add the Shelter 901 to my collection of 'Groove Riderz' and wondered what was the justification of the price hike for the 90X. Read the same review as yourself and thought that I learn't nothing other than someone's opinion with no stats and just the usual cost more gotta be better scenario.

starboy wrote:

Give me spec's I thought... The internet highway brought up nada. The spec's you dropped Romy was what I was waiting for (thanks), but they didn't relate to the difference between $1500 and $2700 buckeroo's. So the difference spec' wise is Anodized aluminium... The cost of an anodized exhaust against standard titanium for my sports bike is probably the difference of 100 bucks so it ain't there. The coils ain't 24kt gold like the upper end Clearaudio's so it ain't there either methinks. Samarium Cobalt v Neodymium. (see link)  http://amasci.com/neodemo.html The cost of Neodymium can't be it either . (see link)  http://www.unitednuclear.com/magnets.htm I can only conclude that the latter is harder to work with hence the extra $1200? Maybe some metallurgist can spread some light. And as for all the 'Usual Suspect' Audiongon types waiting for a low mileage for a $1000 and thinking they gots a bargain. There are stores in Nippon throwing 'em out at under $900 dollars new. $900 v $2700 This isn't just about money but I aint gonna get shafted. Maybe one day I'll hear a 90X and think the outlay is justified. Really.

I know, I know all this rant sounds like a paranoiac foolishness on my part but… it is 21 century and do we have any other way to approach cartridges then just to buy them first and then to agree or to disagree with the rumors out there about their performance? If it’s so, then why do we pay 60%-40% of “industry mark up” - It does not look that we have chance to USE the industry when we select our cartridges? Do you tips the employee in a self-serving Chinese “all-you-can-eat” buffet if no one serves you and you should even to wash your own plates after you eat?

Romy the Cat wrote:

marketing the cartridge under some flashy name like “Moses’ Circumcision” or something like this….

starboy wrote:

I guess the infamous JerryS didn't like the 90x that much... Hope the rave review he gave up helps to get his asking price.

Romy the Cat wrote:

...We kept buying it in Japan directly and showed a big middle finger to all audio industry hoodlums...

What I find interesting is that none of the Japanese store that sell cartridges for domestic marker sell the Shelter 90X. Who knows, perhaps the 90X is the big conspiracy between Shelter and US importers who decided to capitalize on the success of Shelter 901 but did not have a change to jack up the price for 901 and therefore they invented the 90X.

Interestingly that do presume that 90X and 901 have sonic differences but do they have beneficial sonic differences? I do not know the answer. The reviewers say that they do… playing their turntables via A/D processors and writing the RIAA curve on digital domain…

In the end, I had a good experience with 90X vs. 901 a few weeks back. I had a visitor. One of the 90X, 901dealers who sold huge number of them and who very confidently and very convincingly descries the differences between the 90X vs. 90. As far as I concern the guy is completely clueless about what he hears and what he understand in the heard. However, he spent a few hours to listing my installation, and I play to him stereo analog with Shelter 901. Then we went out to have a diner where he very assertively was taking about all imaginable aspects of sound, at least in the way how he understands it. I asked him about the 90X vs. 901, he but replied with the textbook phrases and then ask in a different format. I asked:

“The analog Sound that you juts hear in my room was coming from Shelter 901. Could you describe how different my sound would be if instead the 901 I would be using the 90X?”

Interestingly tat the guy knew that I have no problems to buy tomorrow 90X. However, he this time knew that if he would say their typical “90X has richer midrange” then I would immediately ask if he detected any problems with my current midrange. So, what the guy’s answer to me was quite unexpected for me, primary because it was one of the very few moments where a dealer says actually “True”. The guy said that he had no idea if I need Shelter 90X, and had no idea how my playback would sound differently if the Shelter 90X was used.

Rgs,
Romy the Cat

It just was brought to my attention that Shelters released 2 new cartridges: 7000 and 9000. They claim for both: New design technology. Newly designed body, high rigidity, improved front-yoke, larger diameter PC-OCC lead wires wound around the redesigned bobbin.

Shelter 7000 Phono Cartridge
Output voltage: 0.5 mV
Channel balance: Greater Than 0.8dB @1kH
Stylus tip: 0.3 x 0.7 mil elliptical nude diamond
Weight: 11 grams
DC resistance: 9 ohms
Tracking force: 1.4 to 2.0 grams
Load impedance: w/step up transformer 10 to 30 ohms, w/head amplifier within 100 ohms, high gain EQ - amplifier within 47 ohms
Price: $1,995.00

Well,

I certainly I do not deny to Shelter or to anyone else ability to make a “next model” better then “previous model”. The rules of the game dictate that each few new a new model should be introduced in order to arouse a new reviewing cycle. As I said it’s possible that that the new Shelter would be nice. Still my problem with all that saga that no one son of a bitch who comments positively about a new cartridge never made any negative or critical comments about the former cartridge BEFORE the new cartridge was introduced. If the new cartridge is “better” in something then the older cartridge was “worse” in something. It sounds to me highly unintelligent that mostly audio people acknowledge the imperfections of their former cartridge only after they exposed to a new model. I always say that if people do not know how it should be, or need to be to begin with then what is the purpose to go from one still breathing king to other new still breathing king...

Alex Yakovlev wrote:

Thank you, Romy. What about weight? My tonearm is probably too light in its original form?