Puzzled: Audio-Technica AT92E vs. AT95E (AT311EP?)

banyanleaf

banyanleaf

Active Member
I wonder why the AT95E is considered a better cart considering the specifications. AT311EP seems to have a higher output comparing to AT92E and that's all. They seem to be exactly the same. I wonder if their styli are the same.

The big question is, AT95E seems to have worse frequency response and channel separation. I don't understand the "dual magnetic" advantage of AT95E. Does dual make it sound better than AT92E and AT311EP? The price, of course, is AT95E almost 2 times as high as the AT92E.

AT92E:
Frequency Response 15-27,000 Hz
Channel Separation 29/18 (dB at 1 kHz/10 kHz)
Vertical Tracking Force 1.0-1.5 grams
Stylus Construction Bonded round shank
Recommended Load Impedance 47,000 ohms
Output 3.5 (mV at 1 kHz, 5 cm/sec)
Channel Balance 1.25 dB
Stylus Shape 0.3 x 0.7 mil elliptical
Cantilever Alloy tube
Mount Universal

AT311EP:
Frequency Response 15-27,000 Hz
Channel Separation 29/18 (dB at 1 kHz/10 kHz)
Vertical Tracking Force 1.0-1.5 grams
Stylus Construction Bonded round shank
Recommended Load Impedance 47,000 ohms
Output 5.0 (mV at 1 kHz, 5 cm/sec)
Channel Balance 1.25 dB
Stylus Shape 0.3 x 0.7 mil elliptical
Cantilever Alloy tube
Mount Universal
Replacement Stylus ATN3472SE

AT95E:
Frequency Response 20-20,000 Hz
Channel Separation >20 dB at 1 kHz
Tracking Force Range 1.5-2.5 grams
2.0 grams (20 mN) recommended tracking force
Recommended Load Impedance 47,000 ohms
Output 3.5 mV (1 kHz, 5 cm/sec)
Channel Balance within 2.0 dB
Stylus Type 0.4 x 0.7 mil elliptical diamond stylus
Cantilever Alloy tube
Mount Half-inch
 
Register to hide this ad
The AT92ECD and AT311P are very similar Pmount cartridges. If I remember correctly, the AT92ECD has the newer, more slender cantilever, where the AT311P has the older style... I could be wrong. The AT311P has a little higher output... It might sound a hair bolder, while the AT92E might be a little more refined, but overall, differences in audio quality between them will be very minimal. Both have sharper cuts than the AT95E, .3x.7 mil elliptical vs. .4x.7 mil. In theory, a sharper cut should deliver slightly better detail and better inner groove performance. In real life, the difference between these cartridges will likely be negligible. There are several more influential factors, such as tip mass and cantilever design, that do more to hinder performance than stylus cut. The AT95E has a little thicker cantilever, slightly poorer channel separation and balance specs, but seems to have slightly better bass response, with fairly comparable detail.

Also, the AT92ECD and AT311P are more compliant than the AT95E, meaning they are designed for lighter Pmount tonearms, and will track lighter. Otherwise, the basic design of the cantilever and generator are very similar between all of these models.

The AT95E will work better on a half-inch arm because no Pmount adaptor is required, and unless the arm is exeptionally low mass, it will be a better compliance match.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Same basic design. The AT95E will just work better with a half-inch mount. The Pmount adaptors that come with the other two usually just screw stuff up. They are usually too tall, so they can mess up the angle of the tonearm, and also add mass, which can mess up the performance of a compliant cartridge, as those are.
 
The body design of these is the same. The needles is interchangable between them, with a little plastic cutting.
So the better needle from the AT92E can be used on the AT95E.
gusten
 
So is it the lower demand for P4 mount cartridge cause the AT92ECD to sell less than the AT95E? I am just curious.

You guys are more helpful than Google, for sure!
 
banyanleaf said:
So is it the lower demand for P4 mount cartridge cause the AT92ECD to sell less than the AT95E? I am just curious.
Click to expand...

Probably. P mount arms haven't been made for a long time and their numbers are dwindling.

The 92E(CD) and the 311 have different generators. The motor in the 92 is identical to the 95, while the 311 has higher inductance, output, and I assume, resistance.

The 92 compliance isn't all that high. I estimate somewhere around 9 or 10 cu @ 100Hz. Trim down the sides and the 92 stylus works great in a 95 or Clearaudio - in med/light arm, tracking at 1.5g.
neo
 
So using Pmount-to-half adapter is not a good idea in general? If that's the case, I am in trouble. I have been using AT92E on an MCS 6502 (a scaled down Technics SL-23 for many years and I thought it sounds good), but now it seems like I should revisit the combination.

Multiplex said:
Yep. Same basic design. The AT95E will just work better with a half-inch mount. The Pmount adaptors that come with the other two usually just screw stuff up. They are usually too tall, so they can mess up the angle of the tonearm, and also add mass, which can mess up the performance of a compliant cartridge, as those are.
Click to expand...
 
I prefer to not use them, but they do work well for some. It just depends on your setup...

Usually, the Pmount adaptor will add about 3-5mm in height over an average 1/2" mount cartridge. This can change the angle of the tonearm to ride "tail down." If your tonearm is tail down, the vertical tracking angle (you will often find this referred to as VTA around here,) will be off, which can muddy up the sound, cause sibilance and tracking issues, reduce the performance on warped records, and in severe cases, cause the cartridge to drag on the record. (You can find examples where users have had this issue with the AT92ECD in reviews on Amazon.) Some TTs have tonearms with adjustable height, so you can adjust the vertical tracking angle to compensate. Unfortunately, most Technics TTs, including the SL-23 don't have this adjustment.

That, and the build quality of most Pmount adaptors is less than splendid. A loose, or flimsy Pmount adaptor can introduce unwanted resonances and it will also add more electrical contact points. However, these are not issues that should worry you too much when using a $20 cartridge.

The best way to tell if your Pmount adaptor is causing a VTA issue on your turntable is to look at your tonearm while a record is playing. If the arm is parallel with the record's surface, you are good. If the tonearm is angled higher at the cartridge than at the bearing, your VTA is off, and the Pmount adaptor isn't doing you any favors. Sometimes you can work around this issue by using a taller headshell or thinner platter mat.
 
banyanleaf said:
So using Pmount-to-half adapter is not a good idea in general? If that's the case, I am in trouble. I have been using AT92E on an MCS 6502 (a scaled down Technics SL-23 for many years and I thought it sounds good), but now it seems like I should revisit the combination.
Click to expand...

I used an AT with the adapter once when I was in a pinch on a Dual 1009F and it seemed to work just fine. I did not like the looks and replaced it with a 1/2" mount Shure. I sold the AT with a Technics p-mount TT.
 
The Dual changers ordinarily ride a little tail-up when playing a single record, since they are designed to stack records. In that case, the Pmount adaptor might actually help correct this issue.
 
I installed a nice p-mount cartridge (AT152LP if I remember right) on my mother's Dual 1247 changer a few year's back. I had a selection of p-mount adapters from different manufacturers with some variation in adapter height. I was able to picjk out the best adapter in the bunch to level out the tone arm.

The AT sounds so much better than the Ortofon SuperOM 20 that I had tried first. It just wasn't a good match in her system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom