AT cartridges.
Hi Ingvar,
Which of the following cartridges sounds best.
The AT 440ML , AT110 , AT95 . Is the difference between the AT440ML and AT95 worth the increase in price ( over double the price )?
I have a Technics EPA-101S tone arm on a TD124AB turntable. I am about to put in a SME 3009 SII on it. Any idea how good the EPA was suposed to be ?
Thanks.
Cheers.
Ashok.
Hi Ingvar,
Which of the following cartridges sounds best.
The AT 440ML , AT110 , AT95 . Is the difference between the AT440ML and AT95 worth the increase in price ( over double the price )?
I have a Technics EPA-101S tone arm on a TD124AB turntable. I am about to put in a SME 3009 SII on it. Any idea how good the EPA was suposed to be ?
Thanks.
Cheers.
Ashok.
Re: AT cartridges.
Due to compliance the AT440ML suits lighter mass arms, than
the AT110E/AT95E both of which suit highish mass arms.
The tip of the AT440ML will last at least three times as long and
other issues aside it will give far less tracing distorstion than the
cheaper cartridges. Added to the fact the AT440ML has a much
lower tip mass (cantilever + nude mounting), thus a higher tip
mass / vinyl compliance resonant frequency, basically treble
performance should be in a different league to the cheaper
cartridges.
The Technics arm I not familiar with, but I'm not a fan of the
SME 3009 SII and wouldn't expect it to be a clear improvement.
The AT440ML ideally needs a low mass fixed headshell arm,
suitable types have already been covered in this thread.
sreten.
ashok said:
Due to compliance the AT440ML suits lighter mass arms, than
the AT110E/AT95E both of which suit highish mass arms.
The tip of the AT440ML will last at least three times as long and
other issues aside it will give far less tracing distorstion than the
cheaper cartridges. Added to the fact the AT440ML has a much
lower tip mass (cantilever + nude mounting), thus a higher tip
mass / vinyl compliance resonant frequency, basically treble
performance should be in a different league to the cheaper
cartridges.
The Technics arm I not familiar with, but I'm not a fan of the
SME 3009 SII and wouldn't expect it to be a clear improvement.
The AT440ML ideally needs a low mass fixed headshell arm,
suitable types have already been covered in this thread.
sreten.
)
The 440 i haven´t heard, 110 is similar to 95 but a little more refined. These are fun dynamic budget cartridges but not in the same class as Your TD124 EPA/SME TT. The EPA was favourably reviewed when new. I have only heard it at a coupple of fairs under lousy conditions. Verry good mechanically. I think the SME is far better than todays opinion has it. But mate it with the right cartridge, not the AT 110/95. I like the Denon DL103/SME3009 combination
but that cartridge is six times the price of AT 95.
but that cartridge is six times the price of AT 95.
Which of the following cartridges sounds best.
@ashok
The AT440ML Much much better/worth it!
I have it installed in a Thorens TD 180. You can get it for around 99 USD. It has a very clear sound, low tracing distortion, somewhat bright, low surface noise and a tight extended bass. It does like a low to medium mass tonearm.
Wipes up the floor with those other carts IMHO! I had Grado Red in the Thorens before and replaced it with the AT. Glad I did! But asking which is better really has a lot to do with your table and arm mass. That has to be factored in.
Example: When the Grado Red was installed ocassionally the cart/arm combo would just "take off". Resonate somewhere around 15 to 20Hz. My woofers where just flapping away! With the AT440 no such problem. I'm not knocking the Grado. It's a fine cartridge. You just have the right cart for the right arm. Damn resonance!
So to answer your question the AT440ML is far better.
Wayne
@ashok
The AT440ML
Much much better/worth it!I have it installed in a Thorens TD 180. You can get it for around 99 USD. It has a very clear sound, low tracing distortion, somewhat bright, low surface noise and a tight extended bass. It does like a low to medium mass tonearm.
Wipes up the floor with those other carts IMHO! I had Grado Red in the Thorens before and replaced it with the AT. Glad I did! But asking which is better really has a lot to do with your table and arm mass. That has to be factored in.
Example: When the Grado Red was installed ocassionally the cart/arm combo would just "take off". Resonate somewhere around 15 to 20Hz. My woofers where just flapping away! With the AT440 no such problem. I'm not knocking the Grado. It's a fine cartridge. You just have the right cart for the right arm. Damn resonance!
So to answer your question the AT440ML is far better.
Wayne
Attachments
![media[1].gif](/community/data/attachments/26/26334-9a48a83f4074b7d6a63adc8789c88908.jpg)
Thanks for all the information.
Keith I got the pdf's . Thanks.
This is confusing. I would have loved to mount both arms on the Thorens but I don't think that is possible without damaging the turntable.
I will also get an AT 440ML.
I just tried my new LM394 based MC preamp with my AT30E. The AT3200XE sounds better with a 1K load than than the AT30E with 33 ohm load. Can't figure out why because both are NOS cartridges.
I felt the 3200 has more Hf .. "air"... .
But there is currently a problem with the MC stage. With HF transients ( like cymbals) the sound gets mushy. This I think is HF burst oscillation . Must now put it on a scope.
Gosh this is taking up too much of my time. I need to reschedule my work.
Thanks for all the suggestions. I musn't forget to mention that my EPA101S tone arm is quite solid . Nothing weak about it. It also sounds good as it is. It sounds even better with fluid damping that I use. Cleans up the rest of the image also.
Cheers,
Ashok.
Keith I got the pdf's . Thanks.
This is confusing. I would have loved to mount both arms on the Thorens but I don't think that is possible without damaging the turntable.
I will also get an AT 440ML.
I just tried my new LM394 based MC preamp with my AT30E. The AT3200XE sounds better with a 1K load than than the AT30E with 33 ohm load. Can't figure out why because both are NOS cartridges.
I felt the 3200 has more Hf .. "air"... .
But there is currently a problem with the MC stage. With HF transients ( like cymbals) the sound gets mushy. This I think is HF burst oscillation . Must now put it on a scope.
Gosh this is taking up too much of my time. I need to reschedule my work.
Thanks for all the suggestions. I musn't forget to mention that my EPA101S tone arm is quite solid . Nothing weak about it. It also sounds good as it is. It sounds even better with fluid damping that I use. Cleans up the rest of the image also.
Cheers,
Ashok.
analog_sa said:
Would strongly disagree. I used one of these for years with several Dynavector Diamonds and (even better) several Technics MMs. It may not have been "exciting" or "musical" or what-have-you, but it made records sound more like master tapes than any other arm I ever used- including the 3009. I've got a Linn Ittok now, but would go back to the Technics in a second if it were still around.
EPA or 3009
Hi Sy,
It has now really got me worried. It's going to take a lot of effort and time and money to install the 3009. If the EPA is really better than the 3009 , maybe I should put the 3009 on another turntable.
My EPA101S is probably an inexpensive Technics tone arm. I bought it in Tokyo in used equipment shop - NOS arm. Someone who had it never used it and got rid of it.
Have you ever seen this arm ?
Thanks.
Ashok.
Hi Sy,
It has now really got me worried. It's going to take a lot of effort and time and money to install the 3009. If the EPA is really better than the 3009 , maybe I should put the 3009 on another turntable.
My EPA101S is probably an inexpensive Technics tone arm. I bought it in Tokyo in used equipment shop - NOS arm. Someone who had it never used it and got rid of it.
Have you ever seen this arm ?
Thanks.
Ashok.
Hi Ashok
I've seen pics of what I believe was the EPA 101S which is derived from the EPA 100 mounted on a SP15 late vintage TT it was the same arm only black , I seem to have lost the pic and can't remember where I saw it. Ther is also an EPA 100C an EPA 110 and a EPA 102 . Do you have a pic ?
regards
keitb birss
I've seen pics of what I believe was the EPA 101S which is derived from the EPA 100 mounted on a SP15 late vintage TT it was the same arm only black , I seem to have lost the pic and can't remember where I saw it. Ther is also an EPA 100C an EPA 110 and a EPA 102 . Do you have a pic ?
regards
keitb birss
I have no idea what is a Dynavector Diamond. In all honesty i have only used the EPA500 with a few MC carts and a Goldring MM. The MCs were probably not a match made in heaven as the arm came with a very light tube (H), but even the Goldring was robbed of its customary bass power. The EPA500 is clearly comrpomised in rigidity by trying to be too clever - on the fly VTA adjustment, replaceable arm-wands, complicated magnetic-damping arrangement.
You really prefer it to an Ittok?!
A poor pic.
Hi Keith,
Here is a poor picture.
Note that the arm does not have any antiskate. If it did have it originally I never got the parts. I should have the one page leaflet I got with it.
It did not show any antiskate assembly.
The tank at the back is an oil filled damping device. Looks crude and works well. The only hitch is that oil tends to creep up to all the parts close by and so the unit has to be cleaned off and on. I cleaned it in a hurry for the pic!
The sound off this arm is quite good. The cartridge in the picture is a Shure M95ED. But I use others mostly. The turntable is a Thorens TD124AB.
Cheers.
Hi Keith,
Here is a poor picture.
Note that the arm does not have any antiskate. If it did have it originally I never got the parts. I should have the one page leaflet I got with it.
It did not show any antiskate assembly.
The tank at the back is an oil filled damping device. Looks crude and works well. The only hitch is that oil tends to creep up to all the parts close by and so the unit has to be cleaned off and on. I cleaned it in a hurry for the pic!
The sound off this arm is quite good. The cartridge in the picture is a Shure M95ED. But I use others mostly. The turntable is a Thorens TD124AB.
Cheers.
Attachments
Hi Ashok
Nope you got me stumped although I have seen something similar but can't think where. I dont find it on Backspin's Technics page either , he lists most of there stuff. (list supplied by ex Technics Design Engineer)
I'll look again I found the one I mentioned on either google or altavista.
NB I see the recommended load impedance for the AT3200 is 4K7 ohms and output is 2mv as apposed to the AT30 which is 47K and same output.
have fun
Nope you got me stumped although I have seen something similar but can't think where. I dont find it on Backspin's Technics page either , he lists most of there stuff. (list supplied by ex Technics Design Engineer)
I'll look again I found the one I mentioned on either google or altavista.
NB I see the recommended load impedance for the AT3200 is 4K7 ohms and output is 2mv as apposed to the AT30 which is 47K and same output.
have fun
analog_sa said:
Yes, I really do. Using the wrong wand with the wrong cartridge could indeed leave a bad impression! The light tube was better for cartridges like the old ADC, very high compliance and lowish mass. I don't have experience with any of the Goldrings, but I used the medium mass arm wand (can't remember the letter) with the Technics MMs and the S-shaped wand with the Dynavectors. Bass power was NOT a problem, I can assure you.
FWIW, the Diamond was Dynavector's top of the line for many years.
Shure M95HE on EPA and...
I also have a Hitachi HT-561 direct drive turntable with a fairly good arm. If find a similar arm pivot on other Jap turntables of the time including Technics.
The M95HE on the Hitachi sounds good but the same cartridge on the EPA-101S sounds even better. Better spacing between instruments and a feeling of more solidity of the image. But the EPA has some fluid damping like I mentioned earlier.
Could that be due to the damping ?
I will put up a pic of the Hitachi arm tomorrow.
The Technics 270 cartridge sounds better than the M95HE. It is closer to the V-15.
Ashok.
I also have a Hitachi HT-561 direct drive turntable with a fairly good arm. If find a similar arm pivot on other Jap turntables of the time including Technics.
The M95HE on the Hitachi sounds good but the same cartridge on the EPA-101S sounds even better. Better spacing between instruments and a feeling of more solidity of the image. But the EPA has some fluid damping like I mentioned earlier.
Could that be due to the damping ?
I will put up a pic of the Hitachi arm tomorrow.
The Technics 270 cartridge sounds better than the M95HE. It is closer to the V-15.
Ashok.
Hi Ashok
I found some site ex Japan with specs for a whole batch of EPA type arms ,none of which I've heard off. most likely belong to the "AIE only" group .(available in Asia only). It lists among others the 101S , have a look at http://www.mcc.sst.ne.jp/~yosh/armdata.htm
regards
I found some site ex Japan with specs for a whole batch of EPA type arms ,none of which I've heard off. most likely belong to the "AIE only" group .(available in Asia only). It lists among others the 101S , have a look at http://www.mcc.sst.ne.jp/~yosh/armdata.htm
regards
VN35MR
This was Shure's latest stylus for the V15 III. It is microridge, just like the one used in the V15VxMR cartridge, and better than both the elliptical and hyperelliptical styli. I'm listening to it right now - and it sound divive!
Unfortunately, Shure has just stopped producing the V15VxMR. Consequently, to save on materials so they can keep producing replacement styli for this cartridge, they have also discontinued the replacement stylus for the V15III. They have supported it for 30 years, so we can't really complain...
A "NOS" VN35MR might be 6 months old, as opposed to 25 years old, for an elliptical stylus....
Try to find one on the net fast and you won't regret it!
This was Shure's latest stylus for the V15 III. It is microridge, just like the one used in the V15VxMR cartridge, and better than both the elliptical and hyperelliptical styli. I'm listening to it right now - and it sound divive!
Unfortunately, Shure has just stopped producing the V15VxMR. Consequently, to save on materials so they can keep producing replacement styli for this cartridge, they have also discontinued the replacement stylus for the V15III. They have supported it for 30 years, so we can't really complain...
A "NOS" VN35MR might be 6 months old, as opposed to 25 years old, for an elliptical stylus....
Try to find one on the net fast and you won't regret it!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.