I have it in a low mass arm, the older Pro-Ject carbon fiber arm, and it tracks perfectly and sounds great, even though it is not ideal. It certainly works better than any MC cartridge would. I believe my arm effective mass is probably lighter than the Dual one.Not ideal - it is a mid compliance cartridge - it's predecessors of 10 years ago AT150, AT440 etc... are much more suitable....
Should aim for a recommended VTF of under 1.5g, 1.25g is good - 1.6g and up is not ideal
Compliance on the 440 and 540 are rated by A/T as essentially the same.Not ideal - [AT 540ML] it is a mid compliance cartridge - it's predecessors of 10 years ago AT150, AT440 etc... are much more suitable....
Should aim for a recommended VTF of under 1.5g, 1.25g is good - 1.6g and up is not ideal
And yet the tracking force is substantially different - someone has made a mistake somewhere!! - and I am betting it was in the compliance spec that the mistake was made... that is geeksville and unlikely to be picked up - make a mistake in VTF and every customer will be complaining!Compliance on the 440 and 540 are rated by A/T as essentially the same.
Audio-Technica VM540ML cartridge specifications
- Static compliance: 40 × 10-6 cm/dyne
- Dynamic compliance: 10 × 10-6 cm/dyne (100Hz)
Audio-Technica AT440MLa Phono Cartridge Specifications
- Static compliance (x10-6 cm/dyne): 40
- Dynamic compliance (x10-6 cm/dyne): 10
One thing-- lower tracking force is not always best. In many cases it is detrimental. Keep in mind that a Microline diamond tracking at 2.0g (540) vs 1.8 (higher end for the 440) will be negligible, and in fact the higher force is advised (see below). The important thing is to keep the diamond from mistracking, at whatever force is used.
Yes messing with the compliance / arm mass is messing with the record warp frequency level resonances - this is where much mistracking happensDavid Rich, probably the only person doing in-depth phono cartridge analysis today, compared the 440 to the 540. It would be important for anyone interested in knowing the differences between these two cartridges to carefully read his review (linked below). A brief excerpt is highlighted:
The trade for the increased down force requirements of the VM540ML (1.8 grams – 2.2grams) from the AT440MLa (1.0 grams – 1.8 grams) was conjectured to be a higher resonance frequency (above record warp frequencies) and lower peak resonance in today’s higher mass arm. That does not appear to be the reason. The resonance frequency moved from only 7Hz to 7.5Hz. The Q of the resonance is a still high at 3. Fluid damping reduces this significantly.
When measuring harmonic and IM distortion the higher tracking force was found superior:
We did measurements of the VM540ML and the predecessor AT440MLa. The AT440MLa has a minimum tracking force of 1.3grams and it does well. Moving to 1.8grams is state of the art with the AT440MLa...
Audio-Technica VM540ML Phono Cartridge Review - HomeTheaterHifi.com
The Audio-Technica VM540ML is a very good quality phono cartridge whose performance is quite comptetive against some of the more expensive cartridge...hometheaterhifi.com
I disagree with that comment vehemently.One more component is the preamp or headamp. They are not all the same, you know.
MM cartridges require less electrical loading complexity,
If you say that from the back of your throat, it can sound almost Arabic!I disagree with that comment vehemently!
The same exercise on a different arm, and more specifically a different mass arm, is likely to show differing results!
I think thatfrom a practical matter, a 540ML at 2.0g will be suitable in the Dual tonearm. If I am not mistaken, you mentioned several A/T cartridges that you said would be better, but they are discontinued. What good is that in helping our ASR member find something suitable? Of course one can find cartridges that track at 1.5g. So if that is the chief criterion, then that is that, and one can make any one of those the stop. Replacing the original Grado with a new stylus is a good suggestion, although I don't have any experience with Grados.
Finally, a 540ML can be recommended over the 440ML because it doesn't require downstream EQ, which is necessary in order to tame a pronounced HF boost engineered into the cartridge. Some claim to have corrected that with loading, but few preamps offer that feature, anymore. At least at a low price point. Both my 440ML highs sizzle. David Rich said that people 'get used to it' but I never did. FWIW, the 440 stylus assembly fits in the 540 body, but I have not tried that. In fact, all VM series styli are interchangeable. I might do that, but probably not on the Garrard, which requires a higher tracking force. On the Technics it would likely work OK at 1.5g.
I made sure that the models I mentioned were still available as NOS from either LPGear or Turntableneedles.... because yes, I agree... discontinued models can make things difficultI think thatfrom a practical matter, a 540ML at 2.0g will be suitable in the Dual tonearm. If I am not mistaken, you mentioned several A/T cartridges that you said would be better, but they are discontinued. What good is that in helping our ASR member find something suitable?
The TOTL Grado or Ortofon styli are both good options... and not unreasonable for the OP given one of his alternatives is to spend $1200 on an MC cartridge... the TOTL needles on Grado or Ortofon would provide performance competitive with any MC within that price bracket!! (IMO)Of course one can find cartridges that track at 1.5g. So if that is the chief criterion, then that is that, and one can make any one of those the stop. Replacing the original Grado with a new stylus is a good suggestion, although I don't have any experience with Grados.
I have several of the Ortofon OM series (both stand alone and Concorde); those work well at 1.5g. At one time Dual was in bed with Ortofon--their ULM tonearm series. It could be worth checking out. Also, a lowly OM 10 can easily be upgraded to the latest and greatest Gyger stylus (the 40). All you need is money.
The damping on that arm may well be the thing that raises its performance!FWIW, and from my experience, a 740ML (pretty much the same thing as the 540, but with a more attractive metal body) works well in a wide variety of arms. I've used it in a G-707 and Technics SL-1200 Mk arm (the latter both with and without the KAB damping module--that is another issue altogether), a Dual 704 arm, and a Technics SL-1100a, and a Thorens TD-160 tonearm. Subjectively, I thought it sounded best in the low mass Grace. Maybe, like Les Paul once quipped, I was listening with my eyes. I have a Sonus Formula 4 fluid damped arm in the closet that I need to install, and try it with. Just to find out.
As an aside - the damper brush on the excellent Jico replacement stylus (even the SAS versions) - unfortunately has little or no damping effect - although some people have improved this with some DIY application of high viscosity grease/oil (in minute amounts!) in the hinge...In fact, it is currently doing duty on a Garrard Z-100! (certainly an outlier ; that combo works best in manual mode as the changer mech is too clunky for the rather compliant and delicate A/T stylus and cantilever). But really, for an old changer, something like the stiffer Ortofon Nightclub E at 3g works better). Warped records never worked with its Rube Goldbergish and relatively massive arm. Flat records play fine. Note: I am not advising anyone to go out and buy a fifty year old record changer.
[FWIW, the best cartridge I've tried on the Garrard is the M97x, which has the clever brush/damper. But that is long discontinued, and I would be careful advising anyone to spend much money on something that old, NOS. The Shure damper was an excellent idea, but I've had three Shures that, over time, hardened and/or lost viscosity at either the damper brush or stylus elastomer. I suspect that would work in the Dual tonearm. However that is, the M97x elliptical diamond is not as sophisticated as the Adamant-Namiki Microline found on the A/T.]
The difficult bit with MM's is that there is no real standard for loading capacitance - and even the resistive loading standard of 47k is not so much of a standard as a "recommendation" (shure docs from the 70's and 80's state that R loading of up to 70k is recommended....)Finally, a 540ML can be recommended over the 440ML because it doesn't require downstream EQ, which is necessary in order to tame a pronounced HF boost engineered into the cartridge. Some claim to have corrected that with loading, but few preamps offer that feature, anymore. At least at a low price point. Both my 440ML highs sizzle. David Rich said that people 'get used to it' but I never did. FWIW, the 440 stylus assembly fits in the 540 body, but I have not tried that. In fact, all VM series styli are interchangeable. I might do that, but probably not on the Garrard, which requires a higher tracking force. On the Technics it would likely work OK at 1.5g.
The KAB damper (perhaps like any fluid damper filled with silicone gunk) is hit or miss--at least from my experience. One thing--it is both temperature and medium dependent. That is to say, it is not a precision damping device. Its action depends upon how much fluid you squeeze into the trough. You can never know as it can't be calibrated. Plus, viscosity will change with ambient room temperature.The damping on that arm may well be the thing that raises its performance!
I found the 440MLa stylus tracked very well (perhaps optimally?) at 1.4g - I have run it in various AT family bodies - including a p-mount version - and yes it tracks well at 1.25g... but I think it does better at a touch more downforce.FWIW, and because it was easy to do, I inserted a 440a stylus assembly into the 740 body. In the rather clunky (but not yet junky) Garrard, and in manual mode, and with a very flat record, it tracked at 1.25g. Yet appears to be more stable and 'solid sounding' at 1.8g, which is A/T's high spec for that model. Again, I would not advise the use of an old record changer with such a cartridge. I'm only reporting that it works OK with a flat record. Its pantograph arm never worked well with warped records, and if you have those you'll have to significantly increase tracking force, using a suitable cartridge.
In fact, at 1.8g, the 440 stylus appears to be more stable (visually) than the 740ML (same as 540) stylus assembly, which is more 'wobbly' in that old tonearm! Go figure. Of course all this is from simple visual observation. I have some of the Shure test records for trackability et al., and should make some comparisons between the two.
When I bought my 440 (a and b versions--I have no idea what the differences are) they were heavily discounted. I think I paid about $100.00 for them, each. Those days are gone, for sure. Today, a 540ML is almost $279.00 at most stores. The 740 runs about $350.00. 740 has better cosmetics, but is supposed to be pretty much the same, internally, as the 540.
Given the wide variety of interchangeable A/T styli available, from ball point pen round, elliptical, to several line-contact shapes, A/T are probably the best value going today. One body, multiple choices. Of course you get the A/T 'house' sound, such as it is.
For those using older turntables for 'archive' or 'historical' purposes, an Ortofon Nightclub E at 3 grams works OK, and offers pretty good sound (you use it in an OM or Super OM body), but most folks would not consider something like that with standard 'hi-fi' oriented 'audiophile' records. I use it for 45rpm EPs and such. Plus old 'beat up' records that have some aesthetic value. I'd say it is a better sounding stylus than Ortofon's DJ oriented spherical stylus assemblies.
As far as tracking force goes, I personally don't have much of an issue with upwards of 3g, and have used more as occasion calls. And its not just slumming at the low-end, either. Ortofon's 'if you have to ask the price' SPU cartridges were always massive and tracked at higher pressures. I think especially for older monophonic recordings, and in Japan. Of note, one of Japan's 'legendary' audio practitioners and erstwhile restaurateurs held court using the old Grace oil damped arm (think pro-oriented Grey knockoff) with Denon DL102 tracking at 5g, with his collectable monophonic records. Altec horns and his homemade tube amps. Not ASR tier stuff, but that's audiophilia for you. (link follows)
Direct Heating
DH is an association for audiophiles in seach of musical sound through hand made vacuum tube amplifiers.www10.big.or.jp
However all that is, I've always found that things usually work best at whatever higher tracking levels the manufacturer recommended--the possible exception of V15 models with the brush. Those always did well for me in a variety of tonearms, at 1.0g. Sadly, no one is making super low mass tonearms anymore, and Shure left the building years ago. That was a very down-looking day for record lovers.
Finally, needless to say, everyone has an opinion and everyone has their own experiences to fall back on. And like anything else, YMMV
One thing I'd forgotten about: for a low mass effect, Ortofon OM series feature a small removable weight in the cartridge body. For the ultimate in low mass you remove it, and if your tonearm is able to balance such a lightweight cartridge, you have it right there. Too, OM styli are interchangeable, and run from the large PRO S (good for 45rpm and such) to the 40 Gyger. However, Ortofon styli are not inexpensive, compared to A/T. For example, their top tier 40 replacement runs about $500.00.
That is a shame - I have an SL1600mk2 in storage, I was planning on experimenting with the KAB damper on...The KAB damper (perhaps like any fluid damper filled with silicone gunk) is hit or miss--at least from my experience. One thing--it is both temperature and medium dependent. That is to say, it is not a precision damping device. Its action depends upon how much fluid you squeeze into the trough. You can never know as it can't be calibrated. Plus, viscosity will change with ambient room temperature.
Next, the trough is open to the air, allowing room dust to mix in the oily gunk--for whatever (if any) effect that will have.
In my example, over the course of a year or two, the gunk 'hardened' (evaporation?) which was not helpful, at all. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to remove (or install) the device, so it's no simple job to take it off, clean it, and put it back on. Cleaning semi-hardened silicone from the trough was a messy job.
Like many 'upgrades' I've bought into, the device now hides in a drawer somewhere. Waiting for me to get the 'tweako' urge, again.
I'm not saying that the device is not worth it. KAB sells it relatively cheaply, it appears to be good quality machining, and probably is helpful in certain situations. As always, YMMV.
Sony/Denon/JVC had electro-mechanical damping (I think you mentioned that earlier). I owned two JVC decks (QLY55 and QLY66) that applied damping using a calibrated scale. Very easy and ergonomic. The downside was that these visually stunning record players were housed in a cheap particle board plinth, which wasn't the best material JVC could have used.
Because the patent has certainly expired, why doesn't A/T (or others) offer a damping brush, like the V15? Even if you didn't want to use it, you could flip it up and lock it out of action. IMO it was a great little invention for taming tonearms. JICO Shure replacement styli have the brush, but I've been told they are only hinged (like old Stanton/Pickering) and not shock damped. A simple hinge mech doesn't work like a shock absorber.
I'll tell you a 'funny' story. I owned a Denon DP-75 (Quartz PLL with a magnetic strip inside the platter that was read by a tape head servo tachometer, the combo supposed to guarantee accurate speed stability). The DP-75 came in the optional factory cut out base, which I believe was said to be laminated or layered beechwood. Physically quite large, one could have probably affixed two tonearms to it, and definitely a long 12" if you wanted to do that.Yes I have the earlier QLY5 predecessor to the two you owned.... fixing the cheap particle board plinth resonance took quite a bit of work - but was definitely worthwhile...