Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

...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

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site