Hi Guys.
A funny thing happened to me on the way to the forum... I have been campaigning an Ortofon MC30 with a Neville Roberts designed head amp for some time now and have never been happy with its overall sound as it sounded harsh in some frequencies. I have prototyped about 7 different tube phono preamps and finally settled on a c3g/6sl7 phono stage with passive RIAA as the best sounding phono amp. I protyped and built a 6g6g line amp and rally liked it so I then built my final preamp consisting of the c3g/6sl7 phono and the 6g6g line amp. I had at hand in my geek room an AR tuntable which I fitted with an Audio technica at440ml mm cartridge.. having read the tests, I know the AT440ml has a 2 to 3 db rise in the treble area giving it a somewhat forward sound but due to its microline stylus it gives incredible detail for a mm. My preamp sounded quite good with this cartridge albeit a tad "bright" but it wasnt harsh, just not my cup of tea. So I built a second identical preamp for my "Big" system in the lounge room... hooked it up to the Ortofon and it just sounded let's say.. inferior to the AT440ML. This was quite a surprise to me.
There a are few theories i have.. the first is that the Ortofon has had its day in the suspension compliance department. It is old with an unknown history as It came on a Thorens i bought off ebay.
The second theory is that I havent matched the capacitance and impedance in the Ortofon but given that with all my experimenting with all types of phono preamps, I cant say the Ortofon ever sounded really smooth. Nothing I had tried with all my prototypes had cured the ortofon of its harshness (Yes i tried the input impedance/capacitance thing)
Now I want to try a new Cartridge and the criterion would be the low surface noise of the Ortofon, the midrange timbre of it but the smoothness of the AT 440ml without the upper register increase in frequency response.
So I am thinking of maybe a new Ortofon rhondo bronze or red or maybe the AT OC9 MC cartridge...
Any suggestions? I am running a Thorens TD 125 with an RB300 but soon , I plan to buid an air bearing Lardergaard arm (I think thats how its spelt)
The problem with cartridges of pedigree is the price you pay for a theoretical good performer and the risk that it may suck
All opinions will be greatly appreciated
Many thanks
Nick
A funny thing happened to me on the way to the forum... I have been campaigning an Ortofon MC30 with a Neville Roberts designed head amp for some time now and have never been happy with its overall sound as it sounded harsh in some frequencies. I have prototyped about 7 different tube phono preamps and finally settled on a c3g/6sl7 phono stage with passive RIAA as the best sounding phono amp. I protyped and built a 6g6g line amp and rally liked it so I then built my final preamp consisting of the c3g/6sl7 phono and the 6g6g line amp. I had at hand in my geek room an AR tuntable which I fitted with an Audio technica at440ml mm cartridge.. having read the tests, I know the AT440ml has a 2 to 3 db rise in the treble area giving it a somewhat forward sound but due to its microline stylus it gives incredible detail for a mm. My preamp sounded quite good with this cartridge albeit a tad "bright" but it wasnt harsh, just not my cup of tea. So I built a second identical preamp for my "Big" system in the lounge room... hooked it up to the Ortofon and it just sounded let's say.. inferior to the AT440ML. This was quite a surprise to me.
There a are few theories i have.. the first is that the Ortofon has had its day in the suspension compliance department. It is old with an unknown history as It came on a Thorens i bought off ebay.
The second theory is that I havent matched the capacitance and impedance in the Ortofon but given that with all my experimenting with all types of phono preamps, I cant say the Ortofon ever sounded really smooth. Nothing I had tried with all my prototypes had cured the ortofon of its harshness (Yes i tried the input impedance/capacitance thing)
Now I want to try a new Cartridge and the criterion would be the low surface noise of the Ortofon, the midrange timbre of it but the smoothness of the AT 440ml without the upper register increase in frequency response.
So I am thinking of maybe a new Ortofon rhondo bronze or red or maybe the AT OC9 MC cartridge...
Any suggestions? I am running a Thorens TD 125 with an RB300 but soon , I plan to buid an air bearing Lardergaard arm (I think thats how its spelt)
The problem with cartridges of pedigree is the price you pay for a theoretical good performer and the risk that it may suck
All opinions will be greatly appreciated
Many thanks
Nick
Hi,
I've found messing arround with MC loading near pointless, but
worthwhile for MM's, noting varying the 47K is just as easy as
varying the capacitance. The latest AT440MLa apparently does
not have the treble peak, but this likely depends on loading.
I like Ortofon fine line tipped MC's mainly for the reason the tip
will last ~ twice as long as the ellipticals, so they are cost effective.
I have a MC15SmkII but I suspect the MC25FL might be more suitable.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ortofon-MC25FL-...266927&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72:1234|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318
/sreten.
I've found messing arround with MC loading near pointless, but
worthwhile for MM's, noting varying the 47K is just as easy as
varying the capacitance. The latest AT440MLa apparently does
not have the treble peak, but this likely depends on loading.
I like Ortofon fine line tipped MC's mainly for the reason the tip
will last ~ twice as long as the ellipticals, so they are cost effective.
I have a MC15SmkII but I suspect the MC25FL might be more suitable.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Ortofon-MC25FL-...266927&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=72:1234|66%3A2|65%3A12|39%3A1|240%3A1318
/sreten.
duderduderini said:
This is quite strange. Alignment issues? It's certainly not loading as it has quite limited effect and not on harshness.
Maybe your cart has a problem.
I have a Kontra B and while it excells at both frequency extremes it's midrange resolution is strangely bland. Overall i prefer a DL103. And its surface noise is remarkably low.
Ordered a DL160
Hi
I thought I might get a dl160 for now.. strangely enough the at440ML i had sitting around with about 25 hours on it sounded amazing compared to the mc30.. I borrowed another ortofon off a friend I think its the mc15 and it didnt impress me either.. At roughly 1000 dollars a pop I dont feel inclined to experiment with mid range ortofons for now.. The 440mL although not tonaly balanced is at least a lot smoother than the mc30 even though I know there is that classic V shaped equalisation re its frequency response.
The DL160 gets a lot of praise and at 170 US i can afford to gamble on it.
Will let you know how it sounds.. if it ever turns up
Nick
Hi
I thought I might get a dl160 for now.. strangely enough the at440ML i had sitting around with about 25 hours on it sounded amazing compared to the mc30.. I borrowed another ortofon off a friend I think its the mc15 and it didnt impress me either.. At roughly 1000 dollars a pop I dont feel inclined to experiment with mid range ortofons for now.. The 440mL although not tonaly balanced is at least a lot smoother than the mc30 even though I know there is that classic V shaped equalisation re its frequency response.
The DL160 gets a lot of praise and at 170 US i can afford to gamble on it.
Will let you know how it sounds.. if it ever turns up
Nick
I got to know the Aurum Beta in the metal version at a friend's in a Pro-Ject RPM. I admire it, because it doesnt "sound" the record in any specific way, but just transports the pure music very light-hearted and accuratly. When I'll have saved enough money, I'm going to buy the Aurum Beta too, but since I only own a Dual 626 with a ultra light arm, I'm going to buy the satineé version, cause its lighter. Never heard the wood version before though, but it has to have a little suprise in it, doesnt it?
I had a Clearaudio Aurum Beta, or something like that. The dealer sold me on it saying that the stylus was replaceable and that it was not expensive to do. The stylus broke, and when I tried to get a replacement stylus I was told that I could trade it in and get a discount on a new one, but that they would in fact not sell me a new stylus. Moreover, I looked around online and I was not the first with this issue. Maybe I misheard, and maybe it was my fault, but it was all very frustrating.
I just bought a Shure M97xE for $55 from Amazon (with free shipping) and I have to say I like it better than I remember liking the CA. Could be my imagination, and that spending 1/10th the amount for at least comparable performance just makes me think its better.
B/t/w/, my broken cartridge does have some trade in value, so if anybody wants to make an offer on it I'm all ears.
I just bought a Shure M97xE for $55 from Amazon (with free shipping) and I have to say I like it better than I remember liking the CA. Could be my imagination, and that spending 1/10th the amount for at least comparable performance just makes me think its better.
B/t/w/, my broken cartridge does have some trade in value, so if anybody wants to make an offer on it I'm all ears.
Attachments
Always the fine print
Salesmen offering the world only to turn out to be b/s?
Come on they wouldnt do that ?really!!!
In all seriousness thanks for all the info on the Clear Audio... sometimes i dislike capitalism.. it seems so simple but it never is. With respect the stylus I mean.
Anyway I hopefully will get my Denon dl160 soon if LP gear get their act together and I will compare it to the AT 440ML i have.. I remember this cart with another tube preamp i had sounded awful so I put it in a precarious place for a few years then mounted it on to my AR and my new build tube preamp (C3G 6sl7 for phono and 6g6 for line amp) and it sounded astounding.. how is that for value? If the loading is correct the 440ML can sound great and for the money its an absolute steal,
Will let you know how the Denn sounds
Thanks to all.
Nick
Salesmen offering the world only to turn out to be b/s?
Come on they wouldnt do that ?really!!!
In all seriousness thanks for all the info on the Clear Audio... sometimes i dislike capitalism.. it seems so simple but it never is. With respect the stylus I mean.
Anyway I hopefully will get my Denon dl160 soon if LP gear get their act together and I will compare it to the AT 440ML i have.. I remember this cart with another tube preamp i had sounded awful so I put it in a precarious place for a few years then mounted it on to my AR and my new build tube preamp (C3G 6sl7 for phono and 6g6 for line amp) and it sounded astounding.. how is that for value? If the loading is correct the 440ML can sound great and for the money its an absolute steal,
Will let you know how the Denn sounds
Thanks to all.
Nick
These guys (http://www.sound-smith.com/) look like they will do re-tipping for a reasonable cost so I may get mine fixed after all, though probably not until the Shure has worn out its welcome.
DENNON DL160 AT440mlx
Hello,
I too have been looking into the very cartridges you mention here. I have a VPI HW19 MK.IV Turntable, along with a ZETA Tonearm, the ZETA was very highly regarded for years, leading up the SME V. Anyway, the ZETA Arm is considered a Medium to High Mass Arm, with an Effective Mass of 16 Grams. I have used the ATOC9 Cartridge, and also the GRADO SIGNATURE TLZ....both of these carts. came out about the same time, 1990 and both had rave reviews by both Stereophile and the Absolute Sound..among others...
They both worked with my arm, I was worried about the Grado due to compliance being high, but Grado stated it would be fine with my ZETA Arm. I tested it with HiFi News Test Record, and it seems to Resonate at 10 HZ, which would be ideal. Soundwise, the Grado has excellent Midrange and Bass....the ATOC9 has great detail, highs, etc...but sounds kinda thin or bright. Which is why I am considering another cartridge, but was looking in the Budgest area, such as Denon, AT, Ortofon, etc...
How do you think any of the Denon DL's would work with my arm? Or the AT? I mean in Particular the AT150mlx, or AT440mlx...and the Denon DL110, or Denon DL160?? Matching with my Arm Mass which is 16 Grams Effective Mass?? Wouls they work OK with my ZETA? Any Advice appreciated..Thanks, Ray
Hello,
I too have been looking into the very cartridges you mention here. I have a VPI HW19 MK.IV Turntable, along with a ZETA Tonearm, the ZETA was very highly regarded for years, leading up the SME V. Anyway, the ZETA Arm is considered a Medium to High Mass Arm, with an Effective Mass of 16 Grams. I have used the ATOC9 Cartridge, and also the GRADO SIGNATURE TLZ....both of these carts. came out about the same time, 1990 and both had rave reviews by both Stereophile and the Absolute Sound..among others...
They both worked with my arm, I was worried about the Grado due to compliance being high, but Grado stated it would be fine with my ZETA Arm. I tested it with HiFi News Test Record, and it seems to Resonate at 10 HZ, which would be ideal. Soundwise, the Grado has excellent Midrange and Bass....the ATOC9 has great detail, highs, etc...but sounds kinda thin or bright. Which is why I am considering another cartridge, but was looking in the Budgest area, such as Denon, AT, Ortofon, etc...
How do you think any of the Denon DL's would work with my arm? Or the AT? I mean in Particular the AT150mlx, or AT440mlx...and the Denon DL110, or Denon DL160?? Matching with my Arm Mass which is 16 Grams Effective Mass?? Wouls they work OK with my ZETA? Any Advice appreciated..Thanks, Ray
Tough Call Ray
It seems the oc audio technica may well have the at corporate sound so if it sounded thin on your system then maybe the mm ones will too. Haviong said that, the 150mlx sounds way better than the 440 but "kind of the same" ergo the 150 is worth the extra money but if you can experiment with the 440 at 100 US dollars, and you like it.. then you can safely buy the 150mlx.
Its a matter of capacitance(about 150pF max for the AT's)as to which cartridge sounds good.. I am convinced of that.. and of course arm mass
I for one have not regretted getting the 150mlx.. it shines for me and it the first time my lp gear sounds truly wonderful
Good luck with your choices.
Nick
It seems the oc audio technica may well have the at corporate sound so if it sounded thin on your system then maybe the mm ones will too. Haviong said that, the 150mlx sounds way better than the 440 but "kind of the same" ergo the 150 is worth the extra money but if you can experiment with the 440 at 100 US dollars, and you like it.. then you can safely buy the 150mlx.
Its a matter of capacitance(about 150pF max for the AT's)as to which cartridge sounds good.. I am convinced of that.. and of course arm mass
I for one have not regretted getting the 150mlx.. it shines for me and it the first time my lp gear sounds truly wonderful
Good luck with your choices.
Nick
Audio Technica Capacitance
Hi Nick,
Maybe this could be part of my problems. I remember when using the ATOC9, I did change the resistance at the inputs, instead of the standard 47Kohms that is standard from factory. I changed the Load to something else, dont remember, but it was recommended. I didn't however change the factory capacitor that was across the inputs. The factory Capacitor was 560 Picofarad. I didn't touch that, just left it as is. Maybe I should remove that, and check how it sounds with just that capacitance from my cables and wire to the OC9. I have never messed with Capacitance on any of my cartridges. But most people say that the capacitance from the cables and wiring is about 150 picofarad. Perhaps I should remove the 560 Picofarad, put the recommended Resistor across inputs, instead of the 47Kohm, and give another listen. It might make the difference. I seem to be reading how important the Capacitance is with these AT cartridges. And that is something I have not ever touched. Any feedback on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks, Ray
Hi Nick,
Maybe this could be part of my problems. I remember when using the ATOC9, I did change the resistance at the inputs, instead of the standard 47Kohms that is standard from factory. I changed the Load to something else, dont remember, but it was recommended. I didn't however change the factory capacitor that was across the inputs. The factory Capacitor was 560 Picofarad. I didn't touch that, just left it as is. Maybe I should remove that, and check how it sounds with just that capacitance from my cables and wire to the OC9. I have never messed with Capacitance on any of my cartridges. But most people say that the capacitance from the cables and wiring is about 150 picofarad. Perhaps I should remove the 560 Picofarad, put the recommended Resistor across inputs, instead of the 47Kohm, and give another listen. It might make the difference. I seem to be reading how important the Capacitance is with these AT cartridges. And that is something I have not ever touched. Any feedback on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks, Ray
Re: Audio Technica Capacitance
I was under the impression that MC carts. were relatively immune to capacitance loading. The AT440 and AT150 are MM carts.
It would seem that impedance loading is more important, certainly in the case of the OC9. The recommended loading is 20ohms or higher, with some reviewers stating that 20 is the magic number, and shouldn't be exceeded. Of course YMMV.
Jeff
rayr20683 said:
I was under the impression that MC carts. were relatively immune to capacitance loading. The AT440 and AT150 are MM carts.
It would seem that impedance loading is more important, certainly in the case of the OC9. The recommended loading is 20ohms or higher, with some reviewers stating that 20 is the magic number, and shouldn't be exceeded. Of course YMMV.
Jeff
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.