• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Cart the least important in vinyl replay chain, well according to Linn..

cafe latte

cafe latte

Addicted Member
This is something Linn used to say years ago which I never believed, but maybe there is truth in it after all..
Cant remember the order they used to put the components but Turntable was first and arm for sure was second, then I think it was phono preamp, then cables I think (this bit I dont believe but another topic) then last cartridge. I have as a few here know a lot of carts some quite expensive and I love their differences so for me this Linn thing putting cart last did not make sense, but think I am getting it.
Recently for fun been messing about with bottom feeder carts just for fun, the AT3600l which has been discussed a lot on the forum of late. Also a AT95e, a ATvm95c, AATvm95ml also the AT91 and a few sure carts, even a Trackmaster with a d71ee hifi stylus in it with plastic body removed. Results of testing are that all can sound great on a good turntable with a good arm and good amplification and speakers. Actually listening today to the AT95e on a few of my turntables using the DNM preamp and my homebrew 185wpc mosfet heavily biased into class A with ATC scm 100's the humble AT95e sounded fantastic. Do other carts sound better? Yes of course but nothing is a massive improvement, just a bit better in some areas.
The AT95e has been known for a long time as a good value cart, but I cant help thinking that most who use it probably fit it to very budget systems and it almost never gets fitted to higher end gear. IMO though from recent tests carts like these on decent gear can give quite shocking results. Maybe Linn had something when they made those claims all those years ago?
Chris
 
Register to hide this ad
miles12 said:
linn K5,K9 etc....seem to be identical to the AT entry level at91/95 ! just rebadged?
Click to expand...
Different stylus tip I think, but you get the point. I tried the ml stylus on the old AT95e body, yes it was better but not night and day basic 95 sound was the same. Starting to wonder if some of the opposing views of carts on the forum are not so much the cart but the rest of peoples system, maybe even different rooms.
Chris
 
miles12 said:
linn K5,K9 etc....seem to be identical to the AT entry level at91/95 ! just rebadged?
Click to expand...
I owned all the K series cartridges from Linn back when they were still being made. It could be that they were all based on the AT95 design, but while I don't recall all the differences at each step, the K9 differed in having a metal body that could be fastened to the headshell "Linn tight" without breaking or deforming, a larger and differently shaped stylus assembly housing that made a more rigid coupling to the cartridge body, a Vital stylus tip rather than a standard elliptical, the stylus was compression fit to the cantilever rather than just glued. I've heard, but cannot confirm, that there were also improvements to the shielding and a "specially formulated rubber damper" designed to work with medium mass arms. In any event, no, not just a simple rebadge.

That said, I do agree with Linn, and café latte, that the cartridge is the least important part of an analog front end. I have occasionally experimented with slightly higher-priced phono cartridges (for example, a Linn Asaka moving coil), but ever since getting my first LP12 in 1985, I have found great listening satisfaction from budget-end cartridges of $100 and under. The 2007 review of the AT95E and AT95SA by the Stereo Times had made a similar observation:

"The tragedy of cheap phono cartridges (and these two Audio Technicas available exclusively from LP Gear certainly qualify) is that they are likely to be used with cheap turntables and arms, and amplified by cheap phono stages, thus giving a false picture of their true capabilities. . . I played the two cartridges on six different turntables: my antique Connoisseur BD2A, the cheap and cheerful new Rega P2, two Linn Sondek LP12s and my two Origin Live reference tables. I also used seven different phono sections. Linn’s old rule-of-thumb that the cartridge is the least important part of an LP playback system still holds largely true . . . even in my ‘reference’ LP system the two cartridges’ excellent musical communication skills allowed for deep listening satisfaction." http://www.stereotimes.com/acc032307.shtml
 
cafe latte said:
This is something Linn used to say years ago which I never believed, but maybe there is truth in it after all..
Cant remember the order they used to put the components but Turntable was first and arm for sure was second, then I think it was phono preamp, then cables I think (this bit I dont believe but another topic) then last cartridge. . .
Click to expand...
I don't recall Linn ever mentioning cables in their hifi hierarchy, but I did believe their claim about the relative importance of 'table, arm, and cartridge because I heard it demonstrated at a Linn dealer's shop in 1984. Having heard it, I scrimped and saved til I could buy an LP12 the following year, first with a Basik Plus tonearm and later upgrading to an Ittok. I also later upgraded to their LK1/LK2 preamp/power amp combination. With that quality of turntable and amplification, I found I could greatly enjoy my records even with very inexpensive cartridges and speakers--the transducers themselves simply weren't as important as the components that drove and controlled them.
 
Aerobat said:
Cables can be argued, but you have to be kidding about cartridges.
Click to expand...
I have a lot of carts and here differences, but saying something else and sort of agreeing with Linn. The cart is not the most important thing. My Decca is amazing as are so many carts, but a decent TT with a bottom feeder cart can be surprisingly good. Carts need to be judged on equal gear which never happens, ie bottom feeder on bottom feeder gear. Linn way back when was saying the same which is why why they re badged the AT95e and put it on their turntables. This was also before the only MC is audiophile thing..
Chris
 
I have found Linn to be full of :bs:

And most know it

1) Cartridge
2) Staging
3) Arm
4) Platter
5) Table, <Plinth, Motor, electronics, isolation design>

There was a reason Linn always got spanked by tables of equal cost when in a shootout together. It's not the propaganda you put out and make people believe in it. It's the product you put out that needs to perform at the level you want to present it to be.
 
I require that value be appropriate for the totality of my circumstances, which is to say that spending more than $250-300 or so for a cartridge would become unenjoyable for me. I would (1) worry with every use about breaking it and (2) I would feel like a clod flittering money away on such a frippery, not knowing that I'll have enough money to eat when I'm a very old man. I've owned a range of carts up to the ~$300 level and they all sound different to me, but it becomes mighty tricky to say which ones sound better on any given day. I would struggle to go much higher without lifestyle discomfort.
 
miles12 said:
linn K5,K9 etc....seem to be identical to the AT entry level at91/95 ! just rebadged?
Click to expand...

Not identical, but based on that design. The Basik cartridge/stylus was an AT3400, same body as AT95, with a bonded spherical diamond. The K5 was the same body, but with a bonded elliptical stylus. The K9 was, as already mentioned, an improved version. The mount was machined aluminum and was very rigid for very secure mounting to the tonearm, and the stylus was a nude "Vital" elliptical stylus.
 
At one time, I had (only 6) turntables all fitted with the exact same cartridge. That being said, almost all of the turntables sounded the same, yet they were all very different tables. The common denominator was the cartridge/stylus.

My pecking order is:
cartridge>arm>table>phono preamp. System (electronics and environment) are there too, not sure what the order is.
 
WaynerN said:
At one time, I had (only 6) turntables all fitted with the exact same cartridge. That being said, almost all of the turntables sounded the same, yet they were all very different tables. The common denominator was the cartridge/stylus.

My pecking order is:
cartridge>arm>table>phono preamp. System (electronics and environment) are there too, not sure what the order is.
Click to expand...

Very interesting, and I'm not surprised. I've heard some common carts on different tables and they all sounded very similar to me. Phono preamps can sound very different in my experience, though sometimes those differences are very subtle. For me, the important the thing about the table is that it keeps steady speed with a minimum amount of w/f and that the arm is halfway decent.
 
The question is does the hierarchy hold for non Linn tables?

I have heard this demonstrated on Linn tables, where an LP 12 with the Ittok arm and a K 9 sounded better than the Axis with a Trioka cartridge. Also heard the LP 12 with a Basik arm and K 9 keep pace if not be a bit better than the same Axis and Trioka. For the Linn design this does hold true.

Does it work this way with other companies tables and arms? Possibly. Maybe not.

However this was meant to be a guideline on how to allocate money when a budget must be met. Linn believed it was better to allocate resources on the table first as its foundational to the arm and the cartridge. I would tend to agree, but with the caveat that other companies offerings may perform at varying levels no matter of price. And how they interface with the turntable is not going to be the same. So extrapolating the Linn philosophy to other companies products might not be reasonable.

But I do believe an inexpensive cartridge can outperform is expectations when put on a quality turntable and arm.

Cheers
Mister Pig
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom