Dynavector XX-2 vs Helikon on not so perfect records?

Posted by: DUPREE on 02 February 2002

In having a discussion with someone in the industry, I was saying how impressed I am with the Helikon cartridge and the magic that it seems to sometime make. His feelings on the cartridge is that he thought the Dynavector XX-2 is a better cartridge and did not like the Helikon it as it only performed it's magic (or on an LP-12, majik) when it is a near perfect recording and that it is very hard on not so perfect recording and records that are not mint. Is this a true trait of this cartridge. It is an important question for me as we just got our Q4 bonus this friday and I finally am ready to plunk down $2195 on the Helikon SL, and don't have the luxury of second tries. I would like a cartridge that does as much justice as possible to any recording whether it be a mint six-eye or a mediocre pressing from the 80's. What do y'all think in regards to the Helikon and it's alleged fussyness (or the XX-2 and it's alleged lack thereof). I have listened to the Helikon SL at the dealer on a LP-12/Aro/Armagedon/Prefix and on the right recordings it is amazing. I have no way to listen to an XX-2 in this area.
Thanks
Bill

Posted on: 02 February 2002 by Bob Edwards

Bill--

Just visited my dealer today and heard a Helikon SL on an Aro/Lingo/LP12 through both a 52/500 and some tube stuff into Avantgardes. Played a variety of records, some in great shape and some that were beat to death. The Helikon just played music brilliantly, whatever the condition of the record, and made record faults a lot less intrusive than normal.

In short, I'd invest with confidence--it is a great cartridge on all types of records.

Cheers,

Bob

Posted on: 02 February 2002 by Arthur Bye

I tried a Helikon SL/Prefix on my P9 and the results were disappointing. Thin and recessed, not much bass either. In the context of a P9 I think the XX2 is a better choice.

The Helikon SL on an LP12/Aro/Prefix is quite different. The Helikon sounds like it was made for this arm. Quiet in the groove, and the wonderful liquid sound that is what the Aro is all about. I haven't heard any of the midrange harshness in the mids that others have complained about(in the regular Helikon.) This is one nice cartridge.

While the Helikon does PRaT quite good, it's a more round earthy cartridge than the Dynavectors. YMMV.

I've also played it on a variety of records and found it to be a good all around performer.

Arthur By

Posted on: 03 February 2002 by ken c

here's another vote for the XX2. (i believe i was one of the first on this forum to get an XX2?).

for the money, XX2 is a fantastic cartridge!!! and has made me finally forget the idea of junking my vinyl section. i am even thinking about the higher DV's when my XX2 retires.

i have not heard the Helikon, but i have read good reports about it from NANA (i think?). if you get it, let us know how you get on with it...

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 03 February 2002 by JosephR

I haven't tried the Dyna, but tried both Helikon Standard and SL. I would vote for the SL (if using the K board or Prefix), superb tracking. Have played the very dynamic and fast "Hands & Feet" from the album "Flamenco Fever" by M&K Records, and it sailed through at 2 to 3 oçlock without skipping á beat, even on long continuous sustained dynamics and transients ...

It plays old records very well too, and this is one of its better strengths. From Julie London to the Carpenters, Anita O'Day, Led Zeppelin ... Of course, if the record is noisy in the 1st place, then that's it ...

Posted on: 04 February 2002 by LennyK

I've owned the Helikon SL, and while a fine "sounding" cartridge, It did not do the "musical" thing nearly as well as the much cheaper Dynavector I replaced it with. I have a fully speced LP12/Naim/K setup, and like my music to have some life to it. If I liked my music to relax me and sound wonderful, then the Helikon SL migh be exceptable.
Lennart

Posted on: 05 February 2002 by Chris Metcalfe

Anyone heard this? I'm about to, if my XX1 replacement ever arrives, but wondered what the form was. Also, will it be necessary to get a new headshell for the XX2, or a new LP12 armboard to fit?

Also wondering how Mr Blackman rates his Ekos/XX2 combo against the CDX.

Posted on: 05 February 2002 by Martin M

I run this combination (see my profile for the rest of the guilty suspects) and I would say it is a very good cartridge, musical and a good tracker. Compared to the XX-1 L it is cleaner and clearer (although not by a huge amount), somewhat more 'with it' musically, and much better performer on the inner grooves. I do not think that the Te Kaitora is worth the extra now. The top of line DV (the number escapes me for the moment) is a different class altogether, as is the Koetsus Rosewood in my experience.

The XX-2 overhang is well set-up for the Aro (unlike the XX-1L I recall), so you won't need different armboards etc.

As to comparisons with CD, its depends on the recording. Most electronica I'd take on CD, old analogue recorded blues and jazz I'll take on LP. There are exceptions to both though. Both front ends are of superb quality in my opinion.

PS I'd strongly recommend a Mana Reference or Phase IV table for the LP-12. In my experience, this will make a bigger difference than the cartridge.

Enjoy.

Posted on: 05 February 2002 by ken c

fwiw, i also use a dv xx2 in an aro and it works very well indeed. of course the deck has to be set up properly and infidelity saw to that on my lp12

enjoy

ken