advertisement


Best cheap MM cart?

I'm somewhat sceptical when it comes to the X version AT95E.

The only difference in the specification is that A-T claim HF out to 22kHz (with no deviation quoted), yet there are no fundamental specification differences; same .3 x .7mil bonded tip, same straight alloy pipe, same static and dynamic compliance, same electrical parameters, same smell.

I recall reading somewhere that A-T used a slightly different damper in the suspension, however, if that is so then how could the static and dynamic compliance values remain exactly the same?

Bring back the AT110E dammit!
 
Following on from comments here I found an old Cambridge Audio phono stage in the shed, a 640p. Using this through the JVC sounds pretty good on initial listening. Think I'll hold off the hunt for another cart and maybe think about a different phono stage in the future.

Thanks for all the help.
 
Tigerjones said:
Following on from comments here I found an old Cambridge Audio phono stage in the shed, a 640p. Using this through the JVC sounds pretty good on initial listening. Think I'll hold off the hunt for another cart and maybe think about a different phono stage in the future.

Thanks for all the help.
Click to expand...

good idea as it would be pot luck re getting a suitable cartridge - a dealer might let you borrow a preamp less so a cartridge to try out. And the Ortofon 2M series are really good - I have the Bronze. Best I have ever had
 
Tigerjones said:
Following on from comments here I found an old Cambridge Audio phono stage in the shed, a 640p. Using this through the JVC sounds pretty good on initial listening. Think I'll hold off the hunt for another cart and maybe think about a different phono stage in the future.

Thanks for all the help.
Click to expand...
I'm always amazed by what folk in the UK find in their sheds!

If you are willing to have a go, with a minor modification, that 640p could easily be made to near optimally match your 2M Red.

You may simply wish to carry on with the 640p as is for now, however, I took the liberty of running the 2M Red's internal inductance through a MM cartridge internal inductance vs. external capacitance loading calculator which returns the frequency of the expected HF resonant peak. Typically, reducing the input capacitance (of the phono stage plus tonearm/interconnect) will both lower the peaks amplitude and centre it at a higher frequency. IOW, the larger the inductance, or larger the capacitance, the lower the resonant frequency will be.

For example...

As is, the 640p has an input capacitance of 220pF. Typical tonearm cable values are round 100pF - your Technics SL1200 should be 125pF - so these two values must be summed. Therefore, with the 2M Red having an internal inductance of 700mH, plugging that value and the combined capacitance load of 345pF into the calculator results in a 10.2kHz peak at the standard phono input loading resistance of 47kOhm (45kOhm optimal resistance via the calculator). This is well within the audible range and all the worse due to these ramping up to a peak from a much lower Fq (probably 6-8k in this case).

So, if the 640p input capacitance was changed to 100pF (as Arkless initially did as part of his 640p modification service), for example, the resonant peak is pushed up to 12.7kHz with an optimal input loading resistance value of 55.8kOhm returned (still close enough to the 47kOhm of the phono stage). That may not seem like much but remember that the amplitude will typically be reduced along with the increase in resonant Fq point.

Should the phono stage's input capacitance be changed to 50pF then an even lower peak at 14.4kHz is the result, however, optimum loading resistance is now at 63.2kOhm and failure to optimize for this may result in a reduction of sound quality despite a flatter response curve.

After living with the 640p as is for a while, perhaps, you might want to consider having it adjusted to 100pF, before trying other phono stages that may or may not match without pursuing the same treatment.*

Craig

* Although there are many user adjustable MC phono stages about, their MM sections (if they have them), and those of MM only stages, are rarely adjustable without a bit of surgery.

EDIT: Calculated results updated to reflect a Technics 125pF tonearm cable capacitance.
 
Last edited:
per flemming said:
I've heard this several times
Is there any eqvivalent in the new VM range ? or would it be better getting an old AT110E fitting 110E or 120 replacement stylus in ?
Click to expand...
Of the current VM series, the VM520EB (EB = Elliptical Bonded) is the first step up the elliptical tip ladder. This model has what appears to be more or less the same bonded .3 x .7mil tip and straight cantilever as AT95E; possibly with a bit more polish, and/or better alignment, and/or a slightly smaller blob of adhesive atop the business end. The core performance specifications seem a bit optimistic to me though.

An ATN120E stylus won't fit an AT110E body. The elusive ATN115E (with the same tip as AT120E) was as high as one could go in the 105/110E/115E series.

BTW, it is worth noting that, although AT110E had a .4 x .7mil tip (they start at .3 x .7mil these days) its channel separation of 26dB and channel balance of 1.5dB were closer to those of AT120E than to AT95E; perceived surface noise was also incredibly low for a budget elliptical.
 
Last edited:
And still does.... Unless a customer requests another value. I've done several with no input capacitors for 2M series. Arm lead capacitance is enough.

Craig B said:
I'm always amazed by what folk in the UK find in their sheds!

If you are willing to have a go, with a minor modification, that 640p could easily be made to near optimally match your 2M Red.

You may simply wish to carry on with the 640p as is for now, however, I took the liberty of running the 2M Red's internal inductance through a MM cartridge internal inductance vs. external capacitance loading calculator which returns the frequency of the expected HF resonant peak. Typically, reducing the input capacitance (of the phono stage plus tonearm/interconnect) will both lower the peaks amplitude and centre it at a higher frequency. IOW, the larger the inductance, or larger the capacitance, the lower the resonant frequency will be.

For example...

As is, the 640p has an input capacitance of 220pF. Typical tonearm cable values are round 100pF so these two values must be summed. Therefore, with the 2M Red having an internal inductance of 700mH, plugging that value and the combined capacitance load of 320pF into the calculator results in a 10.6kHz peak at the standard phono input loading resistance of 47kOhm (actually 46.8kOhm optimal resistance via the calculator). This is well within the audible range and all the worse due to these ramping up to a peak from a much lower Fq (probably 6-8k in this case).

So, if the 640p input capacitance was changed to 100pF (as Arkless initially did as part of his 640p modification service), for example, the resonant peak is pushed up to 12.8kHz with an optimal input loading resistance value of 56.4kOhm returned (still close enough to the 47kOhm of the phono stage). That may not seem like much but remember that the amplitude will typically be reduced along with the increase in resonant Fq point.

Should the phono stage's input capacitance be changed to 50pF then an even lower peak at 15.5kHz is the result, however, optimum loading resistance is now at 68.3kOhm and failure to optimize for this may result in a reduction of sound quality despite a flatter response curve.

After living with the 640p as is for a while, perhaps, you might want to consider having it adjusted to 100pF, before trying other phono stages that may or may not match without pursuing the same treatment.*

Craig

* Although there are many user adjustable MC phono stages about, their MM sections (if they have them), and those of MM only stages, are rarely adjustable without a bit of surgery.
Click to expand...
 
I saw some recommendations for the Shure M97xe in this thread. Just wanted to add, this is one cartridge that I just have never gotten along with. I tried it on a Technics SL1200, and it was as dull as ditch water. However all the phono stages I had on hand were rather "entry level" and did not have any adjustments for capacitive loading.

I know via various forums, some folks really rate this cartridge as a good v.f.m. MM cart, I just have never been able to get any good results out of it.
 
Craig B said:
Of the current VM series, the VM520EB (EB = Elliptical Bonded) is the first step up the elliptical tip ladder. This model has what appears to be more or less the same bonded .3 x .7mil tip and straight cantilever as AT95E; possibly with a bit more polish, and/or better alignment, and/or a slightly smaller blob of adhesive atop the business end. The core performance specifications seem a bit optimistic to me though.

An ATN120E stylus won't fit an AT110E body. The elusive ATN115E (with the same tip as AT120E) was as high as one could go in the 105/110E/115E series.

BTW, it is worth noting that, although AT110E had a .4 x .7mil tip (they start at .3 x .7mil these days) its channel separation of 26dB and channel balance of 1.5dB were closer to those of AT120E than to AT95E; perceived surface noise was also incredibly low for a budget elliptical.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your insight Craig
Much appreciated
 
gx502 said:
I saw some recommendations for the Shure M97xe in this thread. Just wanted to add, this is one cartridge that I just have never gotten along with. I tried it on a Technics SL1200, and it was as dull as ditch water. However all the phono stages I had on hand were rather "entry level" and did not have any adjustments for capacitive loading.

I know via various forums, some folks really rate this cartridge as a good v.f.m. MM cart, I just have never been able to get any good results out of it.
Click to expand...
That's not my experience. A mate has one, I really like it.
 
gx502 said:
I saw some recommendations for the Shure M97xe in this thread. Just wanted to add, this is one cartridge that I just have never gotten along with. I tried it on a Technics SL1200, and it was as dull as ditch water. However all the phono stages I had on hand were rather "entry level" and did not have any adjustments for capacitive loading.

I know via various forums, some folks really rate this cartridge as a good v.f.m. MM cart, I just have never been able to get any good results out of it.
Click to expand...
stevec67 said:
That's not my experience. A mate has one, I really like it.
Click to expand...
The last thing I bought new from Shure was a VN45HE replacement stylus, so I am certainly no expert on M97xE. I have heard others describe wide sample variability with the 'off shore' Shures though, especially so, the long running and popular M97.

Back when I was in retail, the one thing you could really count on working perfectly straight from the box was a Shure. There literally were no audio magazines on the planet that weren't plastered with ads warning Shure owners to only use genuine Shure replacement styli. It seems that the company lost interest in maintaining such levels of quality control (for their existing phono cartridge customers, at least) the moment they decided not to replace their well worn molds and jigs for their replacement styli. I well remember receiving an e-mail reply on this subject in response to my query regarding availability of VN45MR replacements/upgrades for my old V15 Type IV; virtually the same content of which was subsequently posted on their web site.

To anyone wishing to really hear what Shure were all about, I'd suggest landing an M95 body and putting an Ed Saunders replacement .2 x .7mil tip on for $US 29.95 + $4.50 international shipping ($49.95 for the same tip for V15 Type II or III). The popular JICO ellipticals are .3 x .7mil and an N95E replacement is $66. JICO do list N75E and N75ED for $33 but they are the same .3mil minor radii. A JICO neoSAS isn't the same thing, and seems more than a bit 'overkill' in such pedestrian assemblies/bodies as the old Shures.

The Saunders' replacements are hand made in Switzerland using the same shadow graph method as originally developed by Shure and widely used to this day.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
The last thing I bought new from Shure was a VN45HE replacement stylus, so I am certainly no expert on M97xE. I have heard others describe wide sample variability with the 'off shore' Shures though, especially so, the long running and popular M97.

Back when I was in retail, the one thing you could really count on working perfectly straight from the box was a Shure. There literally where no audio magazines on the planet that weren't plastered with ads warning Shure owners to only use genuine Shure replacement styli. It seems that the company lost interest in maintaining such levels of quality control (for their existing phono cartridge customers, at least) the moment they decided not to replace their well worn molds and jigs for their replacement styli. I well remember receiving an e-mail reply on this subject in response to my query regarding availability of VN45MR replacements/upgrades for my old V15 Type IV; virtually the same content of which was subsequently posted on their web site.

To anyone wishing to really hear what Shure were all about, I'd suggest landing an M95 body and putting an Ed Saunders replacement .2 x .7mil tip on for $US 29.95 + $4.50 international shipping ($49.95 for the same tip for V15 Type II or III). The popular JICO ellipticals are .3 x .7mil and an N95E replacement is $66. JICO do list N75E and N75ED for $33 but they are the same .3mil minor radii. A JICO neoSAS isn't the same thing, and seems more than a bit 'overkill' in such pedestrian assemblies/bodies as the old Shures.

The Saunders' replacements are hand made in Switzerland using the same shadow graph method as originally developed by Shure and widely used to this day.
Click to expand...

Thanks Craig, interesting reading....
 
@Tigerjones,

When I was looking up the actual tonearm cable capacitance value for the Technics SL1200 the other day, I stumbled across an important bit of info regarding a production faux pas that resulted in a number of SL1200 decks having been shipped with tonearm interconnect cables of 325pF capacitance (rather than 125pF) during 2009. This only affects models SL1200MK2, SL1210MK2, Sl1200MK5, SL1210MK5 produced up to September 2009. Serial numbers beginning with GE9 will be 2009 production; the '9' being the year code. The fourth character will be a letter of the alphabet with 'A' as January. According to Panasonic, the problem was rectified starting with September 2009 production (i.e. serial numbers starting with GE9I and later should be fine)

Another indicator that your's has the proper 125pF cable is if the red and white RCA plugs have octagon grips (rather than 4 oval shaped slightly raised grips molded on).
 
Didn’t @flatpopely adjust the phono loading on his Z1010TN in a simple way (details on the amp’s thread somewhere)?

A quite expensive stylus upgrade for the AT95E was mentioned here a couple of years back & I think I bookmarked it : will look later as drinking tea in bed and have to get up and take ex-wifey to station... (NB. Ex-wifey not drinking tea in bed with me: she’d throw it all over me were I to suggest it :rolleyes:).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top