Vintage VS New Phono Cartridges & Specifications

[Netty]

I have two vintage Audio Technica cartridges from the 80's - the AT-14SA and the AT-15SA with respectively the ATN14 and the ATN15 both Shibata Nude styli. The specifications of these older vintage cartridges are showing better frequency responses lower tracking force and very good voltages & impedances as compared to even very expensive new cartridges manufactured today in 2023 - Can someone with ACTUAL experience with both vintage and new models - tell me if the old ones or the new ones actually perform better. Both how they sound and especially how they protect the vinyl grooves. And maybe why? I do think maybe the reason for some of this is that the materials used in manufacturing these are problematic in today's environmental requirements - thanks.

I'm asking to know if I should consider buying a newer cart or stick with what has been working for me pretty well. I do know when I upgraded to these back in the 80's from a sure M95ED these rocked my world, and have been since.

 

[patient_ot]

First off, cartridges don't "protect the vinyl grooves" as the mere act of playing a record is destructive. With most decent cartridges the destruction from each play should be extremely minor (and virtually inaudible) so long as the stylus is kept in good condition and not used past the point of wearing out. People that fail to count hours or overestimate stylus life or fail to get cartridges professionally inspected when they need it are running the risk of damage.

RE: VTF, cartridge manufacturers responded to changes in trends around tonearms by firming up the rubber suspensions of cartridges. Most people are not using featherweight tonearms anymore, so they don't need a cartridge that is extremely compliant that tracks at 1g or so. Most arms nowadays will be at least 12g or so, though there are outliers which are heavy arms or very light arms. Such things are niche specialty items these days.

RE: the range of the frequency response, it is irrelevant for regular vinyl playback. Having response out to 40K or more would be useful for quadrophonic records (and the decoder signal for those) but not much else. Quad records are a dead format, though there are a tiny group of people that try to keep them alive. The vast majority of records made today are stereo records, and unless you are very young, odds are you cannot even hear out to 20K. Some of the old timers on sites like this will be lucky to have useful hearing out to 12K.

RE: cartridge design in general, many new cartridges are based on generator designs that are over 40 years old. The main difference is compliance and VTF, and the availability of cantilever materials such as Beryllium which is no longer available.

 

[HamboneF18]

Originally, reducing record wear drove VTF down to 0.5-1.2 grams. Empire, ADC, Shure, Pickering/Stanton did this, with ADC and Shure leading the push. Shure’s written research in the 1950s proved the need for lighter tracking, when vinyl was the prime audio medium. Tonearms followed with light and ULM arms being mass produced (hence the plethora of straight tonearms 1979-1990).

Physics haven’t changed, but marketing has. Vinyl is no longer the primary audio medium. So new TTs, arms, cartridges, styli are made to track heavier, and wear your stylus out fast. To hell with your records! Who cares?? Why try?

That’s why I still prefer vintage high compliance cartridges. They’re much kinder to your grooves.

 

[flavio81]

Loescher (from Lenco) AES paper on record wear show that essentially one shouldn't worry with record wear even if playing at 2.5g with a conical stylus, as long as the cartridge is good enough to accurately track everything (no mistracking at all). This means a low moving mass.

As long as you have a fine cartridge of excellent tracking cartridges you vinyl will last "forever" for practical purposes (more than 1500 plays).

There are other tests out there that support the same conclusions, for example JVC's tests for CD4 quadraphonic records in the 70s and others.

 

[flavio81]

I have two vintage Audio Technica cartridges from the 80's - the AT-14SA and the AT-15SA with respectively the ATN14 and the ATN15 both Shibata Nude styli. The specifications of these older vintage cartridges are showing better frequency responses lower tracking force and very good voltages & impedances as compared to even very expensive new cartridges manufactured today in 2023 - Can someone with ACTUAL experience with both vintage and new models - tell me if the old ones or the new ones actually perform better.

AT-15Sa, if i was not mistaken, was the top of the line for Audio-Technica MM cartridges back then.

Perhaps the current comparable model is the AT-150Sa , which I would expect to be even better.

The AT-150Sa (and other AT cartridges, and other current MM and MC catridges) are also able to reproduce beyond 45KHz, so there's no big deal about that frequency response.

 

[Blue Shadow]

RE: the range of the frequency response, it is irrelevant for regular vinyl playback. Having response out to 40K or more would be useful for quadrophonic records (and the decoder signal for those) but not much else.

And that is the reason those old cartridges list response out that far. Newer cartridges don't generally list response out that far because the buying public isn't looking for that.

 

[patient_ot]

Perhaps the current comparable model is the AT-150Sa ,

This model has been discontinued for a few years now. The current comparable model would be the VM750SH.

 

[HamboneF18]

Loescher (from Lenco) AES paper on record wear show that essentially one shouldn't worry with record wear even if playing at 2.5g with a conical stylus, as long as the cartridge is good enough to accurately track everything (no mistracking at all). This means a low moving mass.

As long as you have a fine cartridge of excellent tracking cartridges you vinyl will last "forever" for practical purposes (more than 1500 plays).

There are other tests out there that support the same conclusions, for example JVC's tests for CD4 quadraphonic records in the 70s and others.

There are 2 sides to the coin: Record wear and stylus wear.

Stylus tip wear goes up exponentially after 1.25 grams VTF, regardless of tip geometry. So tracking at 2+ grams is a boon for stylus sales.

 

[Netty]

HAM - I am glad that you see my point about a light VTF not doing as much "damage" or "wear" to groves and styli and there I used the term "protect" instead of the words "do damage", seems no different to me...

About the frequency responses I have long thought that higher than audible frequencies do impact tones in the audible range. Just like those waves in my highschool physics class, in those trays of water, where we proved that adjacent waves affect other variant frequency waves. Is why I have long thought that higher than audible frequencies do impact tones in the audible range and that actual sentient being’s auditory faculties can be able to hear those affects. I know that there will probably be more people who would disagree with that, than will agree with that – and that is ok with me, have also long been an audio geek and some of my opinions are pretty firmly set. I also know that I surely cannot hear the way I used to be able to, but my ears still test out to be able to hear up to 18kHz in auditory testing.

It is interesting to me that it was the high end of the spectrum that was mentioned of the range of frequency responses. I see a really big difference in the low spectrum of frequency range. 20 Hz vs 5 Hz. So, you may guess that I won't be someone who clicks the sub sonic filter to the ON position. And yes, a setup that will prevent any manor of feedback to the stylus, or that could spoil the response, is a requirement. But having a big powerful sub delivers a lot of impact and 5 Hz if able to be reproduced by any vinyl might be "felt" if not heard. I'm thinking of the Telarc 1812 Overture first version released of 10041 Side-A in the runout area is scribed "A11" and "SR" or something similar. These ARE things CDs just can't do. I have known for a really long time that most vinyl records are simply not made to have any more that the norm of 40Hz to 16kHz, is why direct to disk and half speed masters have long been the vinyl that interests me. Because after all less than that why not get the CD version and not have any vinyl noise. Many of those work great for me – vinyl is a pain to take care of and fuss about, so I leave the vinyl to those who have cared enough to produce something that is special.

I am getting the message that there is nothing different about the way that abilities of new cartridges vs vintage or old cartridges are being measured or what they can reproduce - but rather that it is "that people maybe don't care" about these differences. Which is all good by me, just means I don't need to spend extra money, that maybe have had what is good enough for me for a long time.

One thing great about today's technology is that I can use an electronic microscope that was $40 on amazon an get a real good indication of my stylus wear (see attached - ATN14 Shibata Nude image).


- ATN15 Shibata Nude 2 images

 

[doctor fuse]

Another one who believes supersonic frequency playback (above 20kHz) is important for a realistic portrayal of the music. Netty above described it well.

 

[Netty]

Another one who believes supersonic frequency playback (above 20kHz) is important for a realistic portrayal of the music. Netty above described it well.

YES - but only from my personal experience, and without empirical proof

 

[HamboneF18]

I see a really big difference in the low spectrum of frequency range. 20 Hz vs 5 Hz. So, you may guess that I won't be someone who clicks the sub sonic filter to the ON position.

Two points: 1- Record warp will deliver strong low frequencies to your cartridge. Those subharmonic signals will go to your speakers. With high volume on your amp, and if your speakers are ported, you’ll send frequencies to your speakers that have NO resistance at frequencies below the port’s resonant frequency. End result? Pushing your woofers/subs to X-max with no restraint; damage is the normal result. Unless your speakers/subs are sealed enclosures, you’ll need a subsonic filter.

2- The Telarc 1812 didn't go below 20 Hz. Probably not below 25 Hz. Below 20 Hz, see point 1 above.

 

[Netty]

HAM, thanks again for helpful instructive comments. I don't do horns or ports and I sure don't like warps either. I use Infinity Quantum's in surround, have always liked the Quantum's, the Emit's. with Definitive Powerfield 18's. I have never really worried about the DefTech18. I have heard other speakers I liked as well just couldn't afford them.

 

[flavio81]

One thing great about today's technology is that I can use an electronic microscope that was $40 on amazon an get a real good indication of my stylus wear (see attached - ATN14 Shibata Nude image).

Your pictures are beautiful, however this magnification level won't tell you anything about stylus wear.

 

[flavio81]

Two points: 1- Record warp will deliver strong low frequencies to your cartridge. Those subharmonic signals will go to your speakers. With high volume on your amp, and if your speakers are ported, you’ll send frequencies to your speakers that have NO resistance at frequencies below the port’s resonant frequency.

This problems is serious only if there's a big cartirdge compliance /tonearm mass mismatch.

End result? Pushing your woofers/subs to X-max with no restraint; damage is the normal result. Unless your speakers/subs are sealed enclosures

It's the opposite. The problem is worse with sealed enclosures. Ported (vented) enclosures present a 4th order rolloff on the low frequencies, thus the lowest (subsonic) frequencies are rolled off more steeply. Sealed enclosures have a gentler rolloff (2nd order if i recall correctly) and thus they will not cut the subsonic frequencies so much.

 

[flavio81]

Another one who believes supersonic frequency playback (above 20kHz) is important for a realistic portrayal of the music. Netty above described it well.

A playback system that can achieve real output to 50KHz, versus one that only can get 20KHz, means that there is more bandwidth, and thus the rise time is higher as well. This should have an impact on transient or impulse reproduction.

 

[lini]

(...) I am getting the message that there is nothing different about the way that abilities of new cartridges vs vintage or old cartridges are being measured or what they can reproduce (...)

Oh, careful there, because spec styles can very well change over time. And frequency response without an additional "qualifier" (like for example +/- 3 dB) for example is not very meaningful, anyway - so that the choice of published values can be considered as somewhat arbitrary.

To give you an example, the AT150MLX was specified for 10 Hz to 30 kHz, but with its nude ML tip (on gold-coated boron rod) and low(er) inductance generator (with comparable data as the older, CD4-optimised generator variant used for example for your AT14Sa and AT15Sa) there wouldn't appear to be a good reason, why its frequency response should be more limited than the frequency response of those older CD4-capable models.

Another example would be the AT440ML/OCC, which was still specified for 5 Hz to 32 kHz (despite only sporting a higher inductance generator variant!) - while its direct successor, the AT440MLa, which is hardly any different, was merely specified for 20 Hz to 20 kHz, but that still without an additional qualifier, so that there is no obvious reason for that change of spec.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[HamboneF18]

This problems is serious only if there's a big cartirdge compliance /tonearm mass mismatch.



It's the opposite. The problem is worse with sealed enclosures. Ported (vented) enclosures present a 4th order rolloff on the low frequencies, thus the lowest (subsonic) frequencies are rolled off more steeply. Sealed enclosures have a gentler rolloff (2nd order if i recall correctly) and thus they will not cut the subsonic frequencies so much.

Sorry, but you’re not correct here. In a bass reflex (vented/ported) design, the woofer is completely unloaded below the port’s resonant frequency. The port acts to unload the woofer below resonant frequency. All you have to do is put on a warped record, turn up the volume, and watch your woofer cone pump violently. It’s the reason most vintage (pre-1990) receivers had subsonic filters. As a matter of record (no pun intended!) there are only a very rare few vinyl records with information below 30 Hz. So a subsonic filter isn’t going to limit any recorded information.

I run a pair of ported speakers in my main system, and right now I also have a pair of sealed acoustic suspension speakers. I don’t need to engage the subsonic filter with the sealed cabinets. With a warped record, I get no woofer cone movement. When I switch to speaker A (using the ported cabinets), I get wild cone excursions that perfectly match the record warps. Engaging the subsonic filter immediately stops the wild woofer excursions. In a bass reflex design, below cabinet resonance, there is nothing, nada, zip to load the woofer cone.

1. The only time where the ports are pushing air out when the woofers move back and sucking air in when the woofers are moving forwards is well below the tuning frequency - at this point the port has no useful function and in fact is detrimental as it makes the woofers think that they are not in a box at all but in free air - which causes the excursion to vastly increase but little sound come out as the positive woofer movement is mostly cancelled by the negative port air movement and vice versa. This is why it is critical to not tune a cab too high, and is one of the reasons why a lot of cabs (particularly small ones) struggle with low notes, especially at the bottom of the E and B (and lower) strings (overly high port tuning increases the mid-bass which is the only sort of bass ('fake' bass) that some cabs can do in quantity).

From: https://barefacedbass.com/technical-information/the-mysteries-of-ports.htm

 

[rothwellaudio]

It's the opposite. The problem is worse with sealed enclosures. Ported (vented) enclosures present a 4th order rolloff on the low frequencies, thus the lowest (subsonic) frequencies are rolled off more steeply. Sealed enclosures have a gentler rolloff (2nd order if i recall correctly) and thus they will not cut the subsonic frequencies so much.

Incorrect. Yes, the acoustic output is as you describe but drivers in ported enclosures are undamped, ie unrestrained, below the port tuning frequency and will flap about when fed subsonic signals.

Sorry, but you’re not correct here. In a bass reflex (vented/ported) design, the woofer is completely unloaded below the port’s resonant frequency. The port acts to unload the woofer below resonant frequency. All you have to do is put on a warped record, turn up the volume, and watch your woofer cone pump violently.

Yes, that's correct.

 

[HamboneF18]

This problems is serious only if there's a big cartirdge compliance /tonearm mass mismatch.

You’re wrong here, too. It has nothing to do with arm/compliance mismatch. Even when “perfectly” matched, a warped record (even moderately warped) when properly tracked is going to read that up/down motion as an audio signal. That cantilever is going to flex/move. And so there is your subsonic signal, picked up by your cartridge, and fed into your preamp as an audio signal. The worse the warp, or the more waves per revolution, the more you’ll see your woofer pump. Subsonic filters are your friend when playing records.