Cartridge/tonearm compatibility?

[vintage1977]

Or, you could use the unscientific approach and start a thread asking what cartridges people are using with this turntable and what they like about them.

For me, I prefer the unscientific approach. And experimentation. But I’m fortunate to have quite a few vintage cartridges. I would also add that the weight of the headshell is also important. I hear differences depending on the headshells I use.

Finally, this is a hobby where there always seem to be exceptions to the rule. So don’t worry about it too much. BTW, you could always start with an upgraded stylus for your Ortofon, and then go from there. Just do it at a rate you can afford, and give yourself enough time to properly evaluate how much you like what you are doing.

I like your idea of the "unscientific approach"! I didn't think I'd ever have to do calculations just to listen to music! I'm actually not into the technical aspect of it at all... I just want the music to sound as good as possible with the equipment I have!

Other people have suggested a new/upgraded stylus as well. I just feel that a newer (better?) cartridge has to sound better than one that's of unknown age (??). But perhaps I should take my time with it and move ahead slowly as you say. Thanks for the input!

 

[vintage1977]

It means it has VTA adjustment, which is nice. It suggests that you should be able to use a higher-compliance cartridge with it. If you’re not averse to possibly having to spend more money for a preamp, my suggestion would be to try the AT, see how it works, and if it sounds too bright, then pick up one of the lower-cost preamps (ART DJ Pro, Schiit Mani, etc.) and see that sounds better. I’d also recommend picking up a test record with a resonance test track to make sure that AT is an ok match with the tonearm.

That seems like good news! And thanks for the recommendation of the test record. I will try to find one!

 

[illinoisteve]

I would avoid the complexities of compliance mathematics, by simply asking what cartridge-stylus combos others using my turntable (or very similar models) especially like.

Also, one could find out what cartridges were frequently sold with that turntable when it was new. Then one could research the compliance specs of those cartridges and use that info when selecting a new cartridge.

 

[vintage1977]

I would avoid the complexities of compliance mathematics, by simply asking what cartridge-stylus combos others using my turntable (or very similar models) especially like.

Also, one could find out what cartridges were frequently sold with that turntable when it was new. Then one could research the compliance specs of those cartridges and use that info when selecting a new cartridge.

Great ideas! Will do that!

 

[danmonty]

Did you get this resolved? I have a Technics SL1600, Marantz 2245 and run a AT95E. I upgraded to the VM540ML and am really wrestling with it. Trying both the OEM headshell and a AT headshell it tracks poorly and really sounds fuzzy. Going back and forth with headshells I've moved the AT95E around to accommodate the changes. Every time I put that AT95E back on no matter what headshell it sounds very good. My tonearm mass is listed at 22 grams so "moderate mass" category. The 540 dynamic compliance is 10 X10-6 at 100 hz and static is 40. If static is the key then this is a high compliance cart so I've wasted my money.

 

[The Slider]

Did you get this resolved? I have a Technics SL1600, Marantz 2245 and run a AT95E. I upgraded to the VM540ML and am really wrestling with it. Trying both the OEM headshell and a AT headshell it tracks poorly and really sounds fuzzy. Going back and forth with headshells I've moved the AT95E around to accommodate the changes. Every time I put that AT95E back on no matter what headshell it sounds very good. My tonearm mass is listed at 22 grams so "moderate mass" category. The 540 dynamic compliance is 10 X10-6 at 100 hz and static is 40. If static is the key then this is a high compliance cart so I've wasted my money.

They measured around 7.5Hz resonance on a stock Technics SL-1200, which is about 12gm effective mass, so it's relatively high compliance, probably above 20cu @ 10Hz, not an ideal match for a 22gm arm, VM95ML may have been a better fit at a lower cost, but I'd be surprised if the Technics 1600 arm is really 22gm effective mass, where did you get that spec?

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...udio-technica-vm540ml-phono-cartridge-review/

 

[vintage1977]

I did end up buying the VM540ML. I like it. Although I have nothing else to compare it to except my previous old cartridge. This one is a bit brighter, clearer. At first I was a bit disappointed because I was expecting some sort of "night and day" change in sound, which definitely didn't happen. Not to my ears anyway. Would love for the sound to have more depth and sound "bigger" and would definitely enjoy more bass. But it may not be a cart problem. My receiver needs a recap. Maybe the turntable needs some love as well.

 

[danmonty]

They measured around 7.5Hz resonance on a stock Technics SL-1200, which is about 12gm effective mass, so it's relatively high compliance, probably above 20cu @ 10Hz, not an ideal match for a 22gm arm, VM95ML may have been a better fit at a lower cost, but I'd be surprised if the Technics 1600 arm is really 22gm effective mass, where did you get that spec?

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews...udio-technica-vm540ml-phono-cartridge-review/

I read 22 grams from the sl1600 manual. I don't have gear to measure my setup.

 

[danmonty]

I did end up buying the VM540ML. I like it. Although I have nothing else to compare it to except my previous old cartridge. This one is a bit brighter, clearer. At first I was a bit disappointed because I was expecting some sort of "night and day" change in sound, which definitely didn't happen. Not to my ears anyway. Would love for the sound to have more depth and sound "bigger" and would definitely enjoy more bass. But it may not be a cart problem. My receiver needs a recap. Maybe the turntable needs some love as well.

I'm glad it's working out for you. My AT95E is still the best sounding cart I have although I've got an old AT that I'd have to remove from the headshell to know what it is. It also sounds good.

 

[danmonty]

I read 22 grams from the sl1600 manual. I don't have gear to measure my setup.

I've read that without the headshell and cart the tonearm is 6.5 grams effective mass.

 

[perryinva]

No. 6.5 grams would be ultra light and a 1600 absolutely is not.

 

[The Slider]

No. 6.5 grams would be ultra light and a 1600 absolutely is not.

Well, he said without headshell, so that's about right. The SL-1600 Mk1 is listed with effective mass of 16 gm, and Mk2 as 12 gm. The The standard Mk1 headshell is listed at 9.5 gm, and Mk2 is 7.5 gm, so you remove that and you lose about 7-8 gm effective mass on Mk1 and 5-6 gm on Mk2.

The 6.5 gm number would probably be a little low for the Mk1 since the headshell doesn't add the full 9.5 gm to the effective mass since it is spread over the length of the shell, and much of it is at the connector, so maybe closer to 7.5 or 8 gm.

But the effective mass should always be stated with the headshell for consistency.