P-Mount Cartridge Specifications
- Thread starter pirca
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Pio1980
AK Member
The center standard value of the VTF is 1.25g. Range 1.0-1.5g.
The base of the plug-pin-block-to-stylus tip relationship is a constant standard to all T4P/ 'P' mount carts. Dunno the specifics offhand.
I'm a fan of T4P/ 'P' mount, this should have become the standard cart mount for all but the high-end moving coil esoterica. The 1930s Astatic crystal cart 1/2" (non)standard otherwise is an unnecessary plot complication almost nobody needs to get good results in most cases.
Technics made at least one high-end arm (EPA-102MkII) and several excellent integrated tables (SL-M1, SL-M3, SL-7, SL-10, SL-15) that took the TP-4 carts. They also made a few excellent 'P'-mount moving magnet and moving coil cartridges with the 1st use of Boron cantilevers, scarcely a lo-budget effort.
The base of the plug-pin-block-to-stylus tip relationship is a constant standard to all T4P/ 'P' mount carts. Dunno the specifics offhand.
I'm a fan of T4P/ 'P' mount, this should have become the standard cart mount for all but the high-end moving coil esoterica. The 1930s Astatic crystal cart 1/2" (non)standard otherwise is an unnecessary plot complication almost nobody needs to get good results in most cases.
Technics made at least one high-end arm (EPA-102MkII) and several excellent integrated tables (SL-M1, SL-M3, SL-7, SL-10, SL-15) that took the TP-4 carts. They also made a few excellent 'P'-mount moving magnet and moving coil cartridges with the 1st use of Boron cantilevers, scarcely a lo-budget effort.
Last edited:
Ortofon still makes a nice P-mount MC cart. It's not a dead standard, but it isn't healthy.
SA-708
Appalachian-American
You'll find more if you search for "T4P" than "TP-4". The 6g mass and 1.25 g tracking force are pretty well known specifications.
I never have found the specs for the location of the stylus tip in relation to the base of the cart. Some time ago, I measured the T4P carts in my collection and found about 1mm in variation in length base-to-tip. I also found about 1mm variation in tip height, which would make a difference as far as vertical tracking angle. Now that I have a much larger collection to measure, I ought to try that again.
The other spec would have been the connector/base/plug dimensions, but I've not seen any variation there.
I never have found the specs for the location of the stylus tip in relation to the base of the cart. Some time ago, I measured the T4P carts in my collection and found about 1mm in variation in length base-to-tip. I also found about 1mm variation in tip height, which would make a difference as far as vertical tracking angle. Now that I have a much larger collection to measure, I ought to try that again.
The other spec would have been the connector/base/plug dimensions, but I've not seen any variation there.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
No, 1/2" is standard for very good reasons. What about for any MM lover who needs to track heavier than 1 1/2 grams or has any other special cartridge needs. Also, the alignment on them is only approximate which means many will want some alignment options for better performance. For my better records, the middle class or better P-Mount cartridges are very good but for some of those old mono LP or 45 discs they would be noisy or have tracking issues.
lini
just me...
Loaded or unloaded?
And again, loaded or unloaded?
In addition, the impact on vta would be pretty minimal anyway - e.g. on a typical Technics radial tracking arm +/- 1 mm translate to ca. +/- 0.25 °, and even on a typical Technics linear tracker that would be hardly +/- 0.55 °...Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Pio1980
AK Member
Offset alignment is always only approximate, only radial linear tracking is exact and precisely definable. Pretty much anything done with 1/2" mount can be done with specialty carts adhereing to 'P' mount standards if anyone cared to offer such. The T4P standard is rigid, the mfgrs tolerances of adherence to them sometimes aren't. The high-end M/Cs that like high-mass loading and a very rigid mount will benefit from 1/2" and could be considered "exceptional".
I've had a few decades of experience with an assortment of arms and carts, it was fooling around with vacuum platters, on-the-fly VTA/VRA adjustment, ect, ect, that made me wish for an industry-consistent universal pick-up standard. However the "industry" can't even keep absolute correct acoustic polarity straight so I guess that's hopeless.
Woudn't it be nice to just forget having to worry about tweaking everything to death to get very good sound and just have a turnkey set-up that really delivers the goods. CD was supposed to do that but it all got lost in false premises and assumptions and incompetent production and engineering. Upper mid-fi players like the B&O, REVOX, and Technics LTs came closer than anything to tweakless fine analogue LP playback, the problem was that the "better" stuff just always sounded, well, better.
I've had a few decades of experience with an assortment of arms and carts, it was fooling around with vacuum platters, on-the-fly VTA/VRA adjustment, ect, ect, that made me wish for an industry-consistent universal pick-up standard. However the "industry" can't even keep absolute correct acoustic polarity straight so I guess that's hopeless.
Woudn't it be nice to just forget having to worry about tweaking everything to death to get very good sound and just have a turnkey set-up that really delivers the goods. CD was supposed to do that but it all got lost in false premises and assumptions and incompetent production and engineering. Upper mid-fi players like the B&O, REVOX, and Technics LTs came closer than anything to tweakless fine analogue LP playback, the problem was that the "better" stuff just always sounded, well, better.
SA-708
Appalachian-American
Unloaded, as far as tracking force.
Love-Vinyl
It's about the Music
I know this is a L_O_N_G ago thread for resurrecting but I was doing a Google search for this very thing and this thread came up. Now here's why I was looking:
I have a SL-QD3 and a SL-DL5 using an AT-PM9000, which I gather is similar to the AT-120 series. I have tried a couple of different stylus on it and neither sound nearly as good as the one that came with it now that's it's been thoroughly cleaned. This is what I noticed though. The replacement styli appear to have a MUCH stiffer suspension than the one that came with it. Now I may be wrong but in my limited experience it seems most P-Mounts have some form of a ULM tonearm requiring a lower compliance cartridge/suspension would it not? I have a Pioneer SL-240 P-Mount as well and it's a ULM arm also and exhibits the same behavior among all 3. And if the generic replacement stylus aren't of the correct compliance wouldn't this make an audible difference? I have a Technics EPC-P531 cartridge but no stylus for it and while looking I began to investigate further. When a few threads starting popping up as well I began try and think of possible issues that might arise and this is always one that tends to bite old folks like me resurrecting their vinyl again who never learned enough of the basics to begin with.
I do know that stiffer suspension does make the cartridge ride just a little higher but if Lini's right this shouldn't make much difference. I do know on my AT12Sa, a different animal altogether I know but even the smallest variation seems to make large differences in how it sounds. And that got me to thinking that just maybe some, a combination of compliance/VTA issues or some such might be a potential problem if not addressed when trying to replace a stylus on one.
MarcMorin is also trying to help out with my damaged GF1 if I haven't totally ruined it and it makes me wish I could find more information about the specs after all...
I have a SL-QD3 and a SL-DL5 using an AT-PM9000, which I gather is similar to the AT-120 series. I have tried a couple of different stylus on it and neither sound nearly as good as the one that came with it now that's it's been thoroughly cleaned. This is what I noticed though. The replacement styli appear to have a MUCH stiffer suspension than the one that came with it. Now I may be wrong but in my limited experience it seems most P-Mounts have some form of a ULM tonearm requiring a lower compliance cartridge/suspension would it not? I have a Pioneer SL-240 P-Mount as well and it's a ULM arm also and exhibits the same behavior among all 3. And if the generic replacement stylus aren't of the correct compliance wouldn't this make an audible difference? I have a Technics EPC-P531 cartridge but no stylus for it and while looking I began to investigate further. When a few threads starting popping up as well I began try and think of possible issues that might arise and this is always one that tends to bite old folks like me resurrecting their vinyl again who never learned enough of the basics to begin with.
I do know that stiffer suspension does make the cartridge ride just a little higher but if Lini's right this shouldn't make much difference. I do know on my AT12Sa, a different animal altogether I know but even the smallest variation seems to make large differences in how it sounds. And that got me to thinking that just maybe some, a combination of compliance/VTA issues or some such might be a potential problem if not addressed when trying to replace a stylus on one.
MarcMorin is also trying to help out with my damaged GF1 if I haven't totally ruined it and it makes me wish I could find more information about the specs after all...
Love-Vinyl
It's about the Music
Okay so after digging around some more I found this entry over at Vinyl Engine: P-Mount Specs as told by Flavio81. I specifically noted the compliance specs and his bolding on the measurement of stylus tip to mating surface. Now I'll have to go study compliance again and maybe one of these days I'll actually get it. LOL!
lini
just me...
L-V: I think with stylus tip to mating surface Flavio refers to the horizontal distance from stylus tip to the rear end of the cart (but without the connector part). So that doesn't have much to do with VTA/SRA, but rather with the position of the needle on the horizontal plane, so that it's running exactly along the radius, when used on a linear tracking T4P/P-Mount arm, or respectively that overhang and offset angle are correct for a radial tracking T4P/P-Mount arm. So that bolded part isn't really relevant for what you are currently thinking about... Oh, and I suspect a slight bug in those 25 cu static, which I'd think should rather be dynamic @ 10 Hz instead.
And regarding your thoughts:
- Ultra light in my opinion would only go for the linear tracking T4P/P-mount arms, while the radial trackers already are more in the light category - so high to very high compliance would be most important for use on the former.
- More sophisticated tip shapes sure are a bit more sensitive in terms of VTA/SRA adjustment. However, T4P/P-Mount carts with more sophisticated tip shapes usually already were highly compliant enough to work just fine with the standard tracking force (i.e. the usual 1.25 g) - so on the tables that still feature the +/- 0.25 g fine-adjustment one could always simply fine-tune VTA/SRA by fine-tuning the tracking force. For example, for a cart with 30 cu static (vertical) and an effective cantilever length of 5 mm, +/- 0.2 g would already result in a VTA/SRA change of +/- 0.69° (+/- 0.1 g: +/- 0.34°).
- What I'd actually deem a bit of a problem with T4P/P-Mount rather is that in general the lower ranking and the newer the tables, the more castrated the adjustment capabilities - which is a bit of a pity, 'cause I'd not only like to be able to adjust the antiskating for a really good cart on a radial tracker, but it's also good to have a bit of adjustment leeway in tracking force, be it for VTA/SRA fine-adjustment or to compensate for slightly hardenend suspensions on older needles or whatever... So in my view foremost the radial tracking models without tracking force fine-adjustment and with pre-adjusted antiskating, but also the linear trackers without tracking force fine-adjustment don't really qualify for being used with very good carts and are also less tolerant regarding not quite as ideally T4P compliant carts/needles.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
And regarding your thoughts:
- Ultra light in my opinion would only go for the linear tracking T4P/P-mount arms, while the radial trackers already are more in the light category - so high to very high compliance would be most important for use on the former.
- More sophisticated tip shapes sure are a bit more sensitive in terms of VTA/SRA adjustment. However, T4P/P-Mount carts with more sophisticated tip shapes usually already were highly compliant enough to work just fine with the standard tracking force (i.e. the usual 1.25 g) - so on the tables that still feature the +/- 0.25 g fine-adjustment one could always simply fine-tune VTA/SRA by fine-tuning the tracking force. For example, for a cart with 30 cu static (vertical) and an effective cantilever length of 5 mm, +/- 0.2 g would already result in a VTA/SRA change of +/- 0.69° (+/- 0.1 g: +/- 0.34°).
- What I'd actually deem a bit of a problem with T4P/P-Mount rather is that in general the lower ranking and the newer the tables, the more castrated the adjustment capabilities - which is a bit of a pity, 'cause I'd not only like to be able to adjust the antiskating for a really good cart on a radial tracker, but it's also good to have a bit of adjustment leeway in tracking force, be it for VTA/SRA fine-adjustment or to compensate for slightly hardenend suspensions on older needles or whatever... So in my view foremost the radial tracking models without tracking force fine-adjustment and with pre-adjusted antiskating, but also the linear trackers without tracking force fine-adjustment don't really qualify for being used with very good carts and are also less tolerant regarding not quite as ideally T4P compliant carts/needles.
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Love-Vinyl
It's about the Music
Thanks Lini! I really appreciate that info. The SL-DL5 let's you go from 1.0 - 1.5, SL-QD3 the same but the Pioneer SL-240 is that oddball in that it has 0 - 3 adjustment on it and anit-skate as well. It may be due to the fact you could actually get it as a P-Mount or a standard mount. The biggest problem with the SL-240 is it doesn't have that anit-resonance base the Technics do and if even lightly bump the base when it's on it sounds like you're rapping an open microphone. By far the more versatile of the bunch BUT it doesn't have the sound of the Technics either.
Lately I've been leaning more towards the SL-QD3 simply because it "seems" more musical for some reason. And until I can adjust the auto-stop point for SL-DL5 it continues to frustrate me when listening to some older LP's in particular that have a longer than usual side with music on it almost to the spindle. The linear decides this is where it's supposed to end so picks up and leaves. The others don't. Right now I'm just trying to understand some of this and make sense of more discussions on these things that sound like so much babble when I hear it. I know it isn't so I'm doing my best to get informed!
So thanks again for the info! Now off for more study and tunes!
Lately I've been leaning more towards the SL-QD3 simply because it "seems" more musical for some reason. And until I can adjust the auto-stop point for SL-DL5 it continues to frustrate me when listening to some older LP's in particular that have a longer than usual side with music on it almost to the spindle. The linear decides this is where it's supposed to end so picks up and leaves. The others don't. Right now I'm just trying to understand some of this and make sense of more discussions on these things that sound like so much babble when I hear it. I know it isn't so I'm doing my best to get informed!
So thanks again for the info! Now off for more study and tunes!
iLUVanalog
Addicted Member
:scratch2:All the P-Mount cartridges must keep strictly some specifications.
One: The cartridge weight must be 6 gr.
Two: The VTF must be 1,5 gr.
Who knows more about?
Where can be found the "Official Specifications" of the P-Mount type cartridges?
For the most part, p-mounts weigh 5.9 or 6.0 grams, but some here and there weigh slightly more and some slightly less. The actual VTF used will depend on the stylus type, compliance and weight of the cartridge. Of course, a spherical/conical stylus will require heavier tracking force than an elliptical or sharper cut tip. Many earlier p-mount tables allowed for adjustment of VTF and antiskating (Technics SL-Q20 for example). Later models did not allow for antiskate adjustment, but you could adjust the VTF by turning a small screw at the rear of the arm that holds the counterweight in place...turn it L or R to increase/decrease VTF.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
And also virtually no cartridge was designed for T4p from the ground up except for Technics. T4P was a good but in real world use, flawed system. Those who benefitted most from it, needed heavier tracking force options for records they took fair care of at best. Advanced audiophiles with better systems didn't need it on pivoted tonearms, and professional users didn't need it. It was an ease of use and convenience thing. Albeit a good one when done right for better records. There needed to be more T4P cartridges designed for T4p rather than existing cartridges adapted for it. I wish more conventional headshells for direct mounting of T4P cartridges had been made, I'd love one for the best T4p mount cartridges on conventional tonearms.
SA-708
Appalachian-American
There were a few later pivot arm Technics models that allowed for easy adjustment of tracking force and anti-skate. My SL-MA1 has tracking force & anti-skate adjustable from zero to three grams, and an MDF plinth. It was a high-end mid-80s model.
I recently purchased a NOS Technics SH-90S headshell, but have not yet had a chance to try it out. My SL-1700Mk2 needs the cuing belt replaced and a few other things gone through, but I won't have the space back to work on it, until the home remodel/restoration is completed.
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/technics/sh-90s.shtml
Interesting observation about Technics designing their p-mount cartridges from the ground up. I love my Technics 310MC cartridge, and some of my favorite MM T4P cartridges are Empire and ADC induced magnet models that don't have corresponding 1/2 inch models.