Etna SL vs Atlas SL vs Opus 1
- Thread starter MadFloyd
- Start date
MF, I've heard the Etna and Atlas in one analog friend's system....and the Atlas and Supreme in another.
I didn't like the Lyras in either system and find them more on the analytical side of the equation with a midrange that isn't particularly analog/smooth. That said, I would think the Supreme sounds more like your Zyx so if you want something different Lyra might indeed be the answer.
In the Etna/Atlas system, I preferred the Proteus to both. I find the Transfiguration a great "value"
Good luck
I didn't like the Lyras in either system and find them more on the analytical side of the equation with a midrange that isn't particularly analog/smooth. That said, I would think the Supreme sounds more like your Zyx so if you want something different Lyra might indeed be the answer.
In the Etna/Atlas system, I preferred the Proteus to both. I find the Transfiguration a great "value"
Good luck
Gian has the the CH phono like yours, and we compared the Atlas SL with the Opus on the Bergmann Sindre at his. The Opus was clearly better on classical - much more natural, it had a deeper front to back stage, and more flow. The Lyra was flatter but wider. Lyra had more dynamics and bass, but not that you missed it in the Opus. However, since then Gian has got the Lyra Erodion SUT and he says it's much more improved. I haven't compared that yet. And then you can always get the Airtight SUT
Separately I compared the Etna to the Atlas (not SL versions) on the LP12 at the place of one of the worldwide experts on Linn - so he has all this stuff perfectly set up for compares. The Atlas imo knocked out the Etna - I preferred Atlas much more. But that could have been because I consider the LP12 laid back, and the Atlas is livelier - it is the Lyra house sound which I would want if I bought a Lyra, while the Etna sounded like it was trying to pretty up a Lyra, which I would not want in a Lyra. I think on a livelier table like a DD, one would have to reevaluate this.
I am not surprised Keith preferred the Proteus. I have heard this report from two others with a lot of exposure to various carts. Personally I am seeing less and less value in many of these higher priced carts because they leave something to be desired anyway. The Etsuro Urushi seemed pretty good though not compared, and my running favorite is the Jan Allaerts, will especially team up well with the CH. What Fremer writes here is exactly what I heard https://www.analogplanet.com/content/allaerts-mc2-finish-gold-phono-cartridge. You will also get much more classical enjoyment buying the Miyajima zero mono cart and old mono records than with all these stereo carts.
Separately I compared the Etna to the Atlas (not SL versions) on the LP12 at the place of one of the worldwide experts on Linn - so he has all this stuff perfectly set up for compares. The Atlas imo knocked out the Etna - I preferred Atlas much more. But that could have been because I consider the LP12 laid back, and the Atlas is livelier - it is the Lyra house sound which I would want if I bought a Lyra, while the Etna sounded like it was trying to pretty up a Lyra, which I would not want in a Lyra. I think on a livelier table like a DD, one would have to reevaluate this.
I am not surprised Keith preferred the Proteus. I have heard this report from two others with a lot of exposure to various carts. Personally I am seeing less and less value in many of these higher priced carts because they leave something to be desired anyway. The Etsuro Urushi seemed pretty good though not compared, and my running favorite is the Jan Allaerts, will especially team up well with the CH. What Fremer writes here is exactly what I heard https://www.analogplanet.com/content/allaerts-mc2-finish-gold-phono-cartridge. You will also get much more classical enjoyment buying the Miyajima zero mono cart and old mono records than with all these stereo carts.
Last edited:
Bonzo, if you are talking about hearing the LP12 at Peter Swain's place,what you said makes sense about the LP12 being laid back....except it actually is not. Peter uses the darn Urika phono stage on most of all of his set ups. ( as do all of the Linn dealers that carry the LP12...almost a requirement from HQ..
) The Urika is the culprit here and restricts the ability of the table in exactly the way you describe. Therefore, listen to a well set up LP12 Radikal D without the Urika and on a great phono stage..preferably tube..and i believe you will change your thoughts on the LP12, drastically!Bonzo, if you are talking about hearing the LP12 at Peter Swain's place,what you said makes sense about the LP12 being laid back....except it actually is not. Peter uses the darn Urika phono stage on most of all of his set ups. ( as do all of the Linn dealers that carry the LP12...almost a requirement from HQ..
If the newer LP12s sound as lively as, or even more so than, the ones I heard 25+ years ago, most certainly! (Honestly, I can impossibly imagine that they would have changed their 'house sound' to a laid-back one.)
I have heard the older ones. They never had the drive or slam bang of some idlers or direct drives. Mostly nice mids
As I have stated on numerous other forums...if you have NOT heard a recent LP12 Klimax level table, then you really have no idea as to what the current table sounds like. While the LP12 has been around for about 40 years, the models of yesterday are not at all like today's versions. Kind of like comparing a 70's Porsche with a brand new 2018 model...They are both Porsches ( and both great cars) BUT that really is where the similarity ends.
If you think they were lively 25 years ago, then you are in for a real awakening when you hear the current model....so long as it is not hobbled by the Urika ( or the new Urika 2! Both Urika's are IMO a piece of mid-fi, at best).
How long is a piece of string.
I own the Atlas, now Atlas SL and Etna SL. not heard the Opus.
the Etna in direct comparison seems a bit rolled off in the bass, a little pumped in the presence region to make vocals and soundstage more forward combined with a slight reduction in the high mids to reduce the bite on lead instruments etc. It is still a detailed cartridge.
The Atlas goes deeper and is more linear/neutral from top to bottom. There is a wider sound quality spectrum with the Atlas between great and poor recordings.
Personally with my musical taste and the wide range of music I play I prefer the Atlas over the Etna. the Etna is superb thou and sounds great as well but it does not do rock or dynamic electronic music as well as the Atlas.
The Atlas will tell you more about your system - good and bad - if you are game that is
with both SL versions, you will need to have a high gain phono stage.
I own the Atlas, now Atlas SL and Etna SL. not heard the Opus.
the Etna in direct comparison seems a bit rolled off in the bass, a little pumped in the presence region to make vocals and soundstage more forward combined with a slight reduction in the high mids to reduce the bite on lead instruments etc. It is still a detailed cartridge.
The Atlas goes deeper and is more linear/neutral from top to bottom. There is a wider sound quality spectrum with the Atlas between great and poor recordings.
Personally with my musical taste and the wide range of music I play I prefer the Atlas over the Etna. the Etna is superb thou and sounds great as well but it does not do rock or dynamic electronic music as well as the Atlas.
The Atlas will tell you more about your system - good and bad - if you are game that is
with both SL versions, you will need to have a high gain phono stage.
I have Atlas Sl and Opus 1,both are wonderful
I prefer Opus 1 in my system
Opus is more natural,has a better stage and depth and more body
Atlas sl is little more light on mid bass and flat stage.Highs are very impressive and bass is deep and very good
Both tried with CH P1 in current with gain at 60 or 65 db
Tried Atlas sl with new Erodion SUT.Very impressive because increase body,deep and dynamic,even if loose little transparence in mid high
So some record is better with Erodion and some without
I prefer Opus 1 in my system
Opus is more natural,has a better stage and depth and more body
Atlas sl is little more light on mid bass and flat stage.Highs are very impressive and bass is deep and very good
Both tried with CH P1 in current with gain at 60 or 65 db
Tried Atlas sl with new Erodion SUT.Very impressive because increase body,deep and dynamic,even if loose little transparence in mid high
So some record is better with Erodion and some without
How long is a piece of string.
I own the Atlas, now Atlas SL and Etna SL. not heard the Opus.
the Etna in direct comparison seems a bit rolled off in the bass, a little pumped in the presence region to make vocals and soundstage more forward combined with a slight reduction in the high mids to reduce the bite on lead instruments etc. It is still a detailed cartridge.
The Atlas goes deeper and is more linear/neutral from top to bottom. There is a wider sound quality spectrum with the Atlas between great and poor recordings.
Personally with my musical taste and the wide range of music I play I prefer the Atlas over the Etna. the Etna is superb thou and sounds great as well but it does not do rock or dynamic electronic music as well as the Atlas.
The Atlas will tell you more about your system - good and bad - if you are game that is
with both SL versions, you will need to have a high gain phono stage.
I have a CH P1 so phono stage is not a problem. Based on what you describe here, the Altas SL is a better choice for me, but how is the soundstage and instrument separation?
Thank you for your thoughts. Does the Opus 1 have good transients and upper frequency extension?
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |