Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

[melloncolliecat]

@USER or @mackat What tonearm was used with that Denon DP-80?

 

[aaaakkkk]

From what I understand, they changed from VdH to FG at some point. Maybe all the specs just weren't updated.

This is the same profile FG 70 = Nude VDH
Nude VDH r/R 5/70
Stylus type - Nude FG 70 Stylus tip radius - r/R 5/70 µm

VDH invented it, FG patented it, FG produces it, then VDH patented it in other countries. This story is in some VDH interview for the magazine.

 

[USER]

@USER or @mackat What tonearm was used with that Denon DP-80?

"DP-80 with FR-14 tonearm in a Resinamic plinth"

 

[aaaakkkk]

Audio-Technica AT-ML140 + ATN3472SE

Stylus Construction Bonded round shank .3 x .7 elliptical
Vertical Tracking Force 1.5g = Tracking ability 60mkm
Vertical Tracking Force 2.0g = Tracking ability 80mkm

 

[melloncolliecat]

"DP-80 with FR-14 tonearm in a Resinamic plinth"

Thanks! 14g effective mass, doesn't seem like a mismatch for the Ortofon...

 

[Balle Clorin]

upcoming....Based on the high distortion seen here on OM 40 I went for a Shure

 

[USER]

Audio-Technica AT33PTG/II
Click to increase size

Notes

• These are from @mackat
• The second set was corrected to my CA TRS-1007
• Nude microlinear stylus with a boron cantilever
• This shows one of the general Audio-Technica house curves, roughly -0.5/+2.0
  • Should sound fairly neutral as it is pretty much ±0.5 dB below 10kHz
• Excellent distortion results
• Azimuth needs further adjustment
  • The headshell was not the best match for the tonearm
• This has been a popular cartridge amongst rippers (along with the AT-OC9ML/II)
  • For very good reason I think
• My question is if it is worth the MC premium if you can load a comparable MM for similar results
  • Comparison samples and stress tests would be helpful
  • Does the boron cantilever afford noticeably better trackability than an aluminum one given same FR?

 

[Andysu]

i keep the standard one on the technics sl 1210gr

 

[Balle Clorin]

Audio-Technica AT33PTG/II
Click to increase size
View attachment 327058View attachment 327059
View attachment 327060View attachment 327061
View attachment 327072
Notes

• These are from @mackat
• The second set was corrected to my CA TRS-1007
• Nude microlinear stylus with a boron cantilever
• This shows one of the general Audio-Technica house curves, roughly -0.5/+2.0
  • Should sound fairly neutral as it is pretty much ±0.5 dB below 10kHz
• Excellent distortion results
• Azimuth needs further adjustment
  • The headshell was not the best match for the tonearm
• This has been a popular cartridge amongst rippers (along with the AT-OC9ML/II)
  • For very good reason I think
• My question is if it is worth the MC premium if you can load a comparable MM for similar results
  • Comparison samples and stress tests would be helpful
  • Does the boron cantilever afford noticeably better trackability than an aluminum one given same FR?

My AT33PTGii the CA -TRC-1007 test record gives som strange wiggles in the right channel that does not occur on other test records with this cartridge. Only this cart on this test record behaves like this, strange. This is why I have been reluctant to post it, but since you asked..
Here the same acrtridge on another test record

Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

The V15VMR was according to them, either flat to 10kHz with 5dB dive to 20kHz, or a straight downtilt of 5dB from 1kHz to 20kHz. Yes, there may be two different frequency response curves out there for the cartridge with one more downward sloping. But I don't think it is what they say there...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Cartridge have <50 hours, The SUT is Ortofon T-5 and hardly has any impact on the frequency respons

No SUT

Notes

• Cartridge: Audio-Technica AT33PTGII
• Stylus condition <50 hrs on vinyl,
• Test record: ClearAudio TRS-1007 side A track 1&2 L/R stereo
• Turntable and arm: Michell Gyro SE. Measured peak wow <0.1%. Arm resonance with cart 6.5-7Hz
• Tracking force: 1.8g
• Phono stage and loading settings: Parks Audio Puffin. EQ=500R-0=corrects for TRS-1007 and B&Q QR2010/QR2009 response. Toslink out to USB converter to PC
  • Capacitance and impedance: 50pF fixed, 200 ohm . Total 147pF with cables
  • SUT if used: Not used
• Cable capacitance:147pF
• ADC: internal in Puffin.
• Recording: no adjustment on balance, no Azimuth adjustment on cartridge, 5-48kHz, PC and Puffin at 96kHz.

 

[USER]

Audio-Technica VM540ML
Click to increase size

Notes

• New microlinear stylus with aluminum cantilever
  • I got a crazy deal on this and I figured extra measurements could not hurt
• Distortion is as good as it gets
• DIN 45 543 shows around -34 dB crosstalk!
• This is my second favorite of the modern Audio-Technica house curves
  • My preference is for the one that is approximately -0.5/+2.0 dB at a "standard load" of around 200pF
    • That provides me room to adjust to taste by either loading at 100pF or 300pF
  • But this works for me at 100pF or lower
• The question is if you gain anything with a more expensive option like the AT33PTG/II with a boron cantilever
  • And also what you gain with this over the AT-V95ML
• And we can now more or less compare the three most popular microlinear options...

 

[DSJR]

Audio-Technica VM540ML
Click to increase size
View attachment 327808View attachment 327809
View attachment 327814View attachment 327815
View attachment 327816View attachment 327817

View attachment 327812View attachment 327810View attachment 327811

Notes

• New microlinear stylus with aluminum cantilever
  • I got a crazy deal on this and I figured extra measurements could not hurt
• Distortion is as good as it gets
• DIN 45 543 shows around -34 dB crosstalk!
• This is my second favorite of the modern Audio-Technica house curves
  • My preference is for the one that is approximately -0.5/+2.0 dB at a "standard load" of around 200pF
    • That provides me room to adjust to taste by either loading at 100pF or 300pF
  • But this works for me at 100pF or lower
• The question is if you gain anything with a more expensive option like the AT33PTG/II with a boron cantilever
  • And also what you gain with this over the AT-V95ML
• And we can now more or less compare the three most popular microlinear options...

Check the German Lowbeats site for tests done on the 540 and internally identical (I believe) 740, the metal mounting bracket of the 740 making quite a difference, at least to them using a top model Rega tonearm (which doesn't add anything of its own here). They don't seem to do proper tests now, but here's the VM740 (you'll need to look up the page and read how tests were done)

Below is the 540 and I got the hint they used the same stylus in both bodies but could be mistaken here -

Knowing the general HF losses/compression in the vinyl medium as a rule, I think the 540 may be the 'better' of the two, but then, the general bright tones of the Basik Plus arm (not so different from the lower mass straight fixed head Sumiko sibling) for example and audio memories/impressions of the AT based Linn K9 used in it, I wonder if the slightly more 'old fashioned' VM740 tones might not be nicer subjectively.



P.S. Interesting that your plots look more like the VM740 that Lowbeats measured...

 

[Balle Clorin]

Kind of uneven crosstalk on VM 540ML? Did you try to optimize it, but maybe the L/R frequency response suffered then?

 

[USER]

Audio-Technica Microlinear Cartridge Comparison
Click to increase size

Note that the AT33PTG/II was measured with significant azimuth mis-adjustment and with a CBS STR-100 that was corrected for this comparison and that the other two cartridges were measured on different turntables and with different loads, so this is not an apples to apples to apples comparison. But they are all clearly close enough for us to see the major differences, which are in frequency response extension. As the respective measurements have shown, all 3 cartridges show excellent results when it comes to distortion and crosstalk. Additionally, they were all set-up with 2g tracking force. Theoretically, they should maintain similar performance as the microlinear styli move toward the inner groove of the record.

Here is a close-up showing FR extension more clearly:

Some thoughts:

• I think I can see a catch 22 here: given Audio-Technica's overall consistency with house curves they do not really take advantage of cantilever material with respect to FR possibility
  • And, given how FR tapers out in the higher frequencies as the cartridge plays across the record (amplitude drop), I am not saying that they don't have good reasons for their house FRs (use of resonance) as it might be sound engineering (distinguished from Shure flat FR)
• But is their current strategy to differentiate their product lines essentially to handicap them?
  • I'm simplifying to be sure but it is productive to bracket by diamond shape (here microlinear)
    • Distortion and crosstalk are in the same ballpark, and diamond shape performance should be too
• We have seen enough measurements to know that it actually takes a lot of effort to have a cartridge not extend to 20kHz
  • This all seems so cynical to me
    • FR to 12kHz or even 15kHz is simply not acceptable in 2023 as it was not acceptable in 1960, regardless if this is possibly inaudible
      • It is a disservice to customers to have them think this is normal and a distinction between low and high end
    • Then again the medium's golden era ended 40 years ago and they are trying to make as much money as possible while they can
    • And it is clear that they are concerned about the reasonably priced, high-quality diamond of the AT-VM95ML eating into profit
• This is why, despite the challenges of a diminishing number of quality goods, some of us still prefer buying older cartridges
  • Remember that you can protect yourself by using test records and a good microscope
• But we also have a secret weapon: EQ
  • Recording comparisons with and without EQ and stress tests of these cartridges should be a high priority

 

[DSJR]

Audio-Technica Microlinear Cartridge Comparison
Click to increase size
View attachment 327821
Note that the AT33PTG/II was measured with significant azimuth mis-adjustment and with a CBS STR-100 that was corrected for this and that the other two cartridges were measured on different turntables and with different loads so this is not an apples to apples to apples comparison. But they are also clearly all close enough for us to see the major differences, which are in frequency response extension. As the measurements have shown all 3 cartridges show excellent results when it comes to distortion and crosstalk. Theoretically, all three should maintain performance similarly as the microlinear styli move toward the inner groove of the record.

Here is a close-up showing extension more clearly.

View attachment 327822

Somethings I am thinking about:

• I think I can see a catch 22: given Audio-Technica's overall consistency with house curves they do not really take advantage of cantilever material with respect to FR possibility
  • And given how FR tapers out as the cartridge moves along the record (amplitude drop) I am not saying that they don't have good reasons for their use of resonance as it might be a very sound engineering
• But is their current strategy to differentiate their product lines essentially to handicap them?
  • I'm simplifying to be sure but it is productive to bracket by diamond shape (here microlinear)
    • Distortion and crosstalk are in the same ballpark, and diamond shape performance should be too
• We have seen enough measurements to know that it actually takes effort to have a cartridge not extend to 20kHz
  • This all seems so cynical to me
    • Then again the medium's golden era ended 40 years ago and they are trying to make as much money as possible while they can
• This is why, despite the challenges of a diminishing number of quality goods, some of us still prefer buying older cartridges
  • Remember that you can protect yourself by using test records and a good microscope
• But we also have a secret weapon: EQ

I'm as much concerned about the LF performance below 100Hz myself, but admit the tonearm mass, its mounting and general deck-feedback situation may modify any given results.

 

[morillon]

Audio-Technica Microlinear Cartridge Comparison
Click to increase size
View attachment 327821
Note that the AT33PTG/II was measured with significant azimuth mis-adjustment and with a CBS STR-100 that was corrected for this and that the other two cartridges were measured on different turntables and with different loads so this is not an apples to apples to apples comparison. But they are also clearly all close enough for us to see the major differences, which are in frequency response extension. As the measurements have shown all 3 cartridges show excellent results when it comes to distortion and crosstalk. Theoretically, all three should maintain performance similarly as the microlinear styli move toward the inner groove of the record.

Here is a close-up showing extension more clearly.

View attachment 327822

Somethings I am thinking about:

• I think I can see a catch 22: given Audio-Technica's overall consistency with house curves they do not really take advantage of cantilever material with respect to FR possibility
  • And given how FR tapers out as the cartridge moves along the record (amplitude drop) I am not saying that they don't have good reasons for their use of resonance as it might be a very sound engineering
• But is their current strategy to differentiate their product lines essentially to handicap them?
  • I'm simplifying to be sure but it is productive to bracket by diamond shape (here microlinear)
    • Distortion and crosstalk are in the same ballpark, and diamond shape performance should be too
• We have seen enough measurements to know that it actually takes effort to have a cartridge not extend to 20kHz
  • This all seems so cynical to me
    • Then again the medium's golden era ended 40 years ago and they are trying to make as much money as possible while they can
• This is why, despite the challenges of a diminishing number of quality goods, some of us still prefer buying older cartridges
  • Remember that you can protect yourself by using test records and a good microscope
• But we also have a secret weapon: EQ

Audio-Technica VM540ML
Click to increase size
View attachment 327808View attachment 327809
View attachment 327814View attachment 327815
View attachment 327816View attachment 327817

View attachment 327812View attachment 327810View attachment 327811

Notes

• New microlinear stylus with aluminum cantilever
  • I got a crazy deal on this and I figured extra measurements could not hurt
• Distortion is as good as it gets
• DIN 45 543 shows around -34 dB crosstalk!
• This is my second favorite of the modern Audio-Technica house curves
  • My preference is for the one that is approximately -0.5/+2.0 dB at a "standard load" of around 200pF
    • That provides me room to adjust to taste by either loading at 100pF or 300pF
  • But this works for me at 100pF or lower
• The question is if you gain anything with a more expensive option like the AT33PTG/II with a boron cantilever
  • And also what you gain with this over the AT-V95ML
• And we can now more or less compare the three most popular microlinear options...

maybe the thing in the end considered between 540 and 740... it is essentially the difference in weight for a little finer adaptation to the type of arm..

 

[JP]

Check the German Lowbeats site for tests done on the 540 and internally identical (I believe) 740, the metal mounting bracket of the 740 making quite a difference, at least to them using a top model Rega tonearm (which doesn't add anything of its own here). They don't seem to do proper tests now, but here's the VM740 (you'll need to look up the page and read how tests were done)

View attachment 327825

Below is the 540 and I got the hint they used the same stylus in both bodies but could be mistaken here -

View attachment 327826

Knowing the general HF losses/compression in the vinyl medium as a rule, I think the 540 may be the 'better' of the two, but then, the general bright tones of the Basik Plus arm (not so different from the lower mass straight fixed head Sumiko sibling) for example and audio memories/impressions of the AT based Linn K9 used in it, I wonder if the slightly more 'old fashioned' VM740 tones might not be nicer subjectively.



P.S. Interesting that your plots look more like the VM740 that Lowbeats measured...

Could be unit/test variation. I don't know when they say "same stylus" if that means the same copy or the same model. Was it the same test record?

I've both bodies here and the whole family of styli which are on the winter project list.

 

[USER]

Kind of uneven crosstalk on VM 540ML? Did you try to optimize it, but maybe the L/R frequency response suffered then?

The CA TRS-1007 cannot handle crosstalk below -30kHz so it gets screwy. I get bad results when I try to adjust to it in similar situations. The left and right FR are overall very close to being parallel all the way through so I am confident it is close enough.

As far as the DIN 45 543 goes, again FR shows me that I am close enough. I am comfortable with using the "phantom center" measurement because I only have one copy of this incredibly rare record and don't think it is worth the extra wear to make it prettier by measuring 3 more times or so to adjust it perfectly.

Check the German Lowbeats site for tests done on the 540 and internally identical (I believe) 740, the metal mounting bracket of the 740 making quite a difference, at least to them using a top model Rega tonearm (which doesn't add anything of its own here). They don't seem to do proper tests now, but here's the VM740 (you'll need to look up the page and read how tests were done)

View attachment 327825

Below is the 540 and I got the hint they used the same stylus in both bodies but could be mistaken here -

View attachment 327826

Knowing the general HF losses/compression in the vinyl medium as a rule, I think the 540 may be the 'better' of the two, but then, the general bright tones of the Basik Plus arm (not so different from the lower mass straight fixed head Sumiko sibling) for example and audio memories/impressions of the AT based Linn K9 used in it, I wonder if the slightly more 'old fashioned' VM740 tones might not be nicer subjectively.



P.S. Interesting that your plots look more like the VM740 that Lowbeats measured...

Edit: I read the measurements backwards.

It seems that they are using two different versions of the house curve. Likely a 100-200pF difference but we need to know the capacitance load to be able to understand what is going on. This is why it is vital that the graphs show as much info as possible.

I do have to say that the 740 results look a little odd to me. I have one loaded at 50pF that performs very differently coming up. @mackat: could you measure it at 200pF and/or 100pF?

I'm as much concerned about the LF performance below 100Hz myself, but admit the tonearm mass, its mounting and general deck-feedback situation may modify any given results.

I think we have seen that most cartridges perform similarly below 1kHz. You are right that the performance you are concerned about is more about cartridge/tonearm compatibility. See my 2 examples of the AT-V95ML to see performance differences on different mass tonearms.

 

[USER]

Knowing the general HF losses/compression in the vinyl medium as a rule, I think the 540 may be the 'better' of the two, but then, the general bright tones of the Basik Plus arm (not so different from the lower mass straight fixed head Sumiko sibling) for example and audio memories/impressions of the AT based Linn K9 used in it, I wonder if the slightly more 'old fashioned' VM740 tones might not be nicer subjectively.

See this attached short article from Stereo Review, 1977, 07 from the illustrious Julian Hirsch. I have not ever seen any evidence of tonearms working as you describe them in this quote. The results on this thread corroborate this point. This of course assumes that there are no issues or design flaws with the tone arm and proper set up.

Proper set-up is key as can be seen in this example posted on this thread. While this may not be audible, you can see that improper set-up does influence FR. I now use digital calipers to set-up my cartridges. The increased consistency in my results has been dramatic and was one of the factors in determining that this thread was ready to be opened.

In a way, we wager on the overall reliability of these measurements given proper set-up, similar loading, and and good turntable/cartridge condition and compatibility. Also see this introductory post on this thread. In fact the VM540ML is used as an example of proof of concept as it has been measured by numerous members on vastly different turntables and set-ups.

Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

After years of development we are finally launching our phono cartridge measurement library. These measurements were created using the brilliant cartridge response python script written by @scott wurcer and @JP. Information about its origins can be found in the following threads...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[Thomas_A]

Toneam and/or cartridge body resonances usually show up in the 100-500 Hz range. As seen on several fr response measurements.

 

[USER]

Toneam and/or cartridge body resonances usually show up in the 100-500 Hz range. As seen on several fr response measurements.

I have been more and more curious about this. I am confident that CA TRS-1007 exhibits a sweep oscillator change at around 250Hz like the CBS STR-100 does at 5kHz. I *think* I see that it sometimes causes problems for my Denon DP-35F with some cartridges. (Or perhaps my damping is off.) I have another that I am restoring (motor related; seems to have a tonearm in excellent condition) and am looking to compare it to the one currently being used.