mobanmarketHow can two meticulously built, high-technology, high-performance, premium-quality moving-magnet cartridges that measure so well (according to their manufacturer-supplied specs) sound so different?
That was the question I asked myself after auditioning the high-compliance, moving-magnet Audio-Technica AT-ML 150/OCC and Shure V15-VMR phono cartridges in two different settings. Why two? Well, the sound I got from each was so different in the Rega 9 ‘table—review to appear next month—I figured I’d better give them both another shot someplace else. So I mounted them in a couple of Graham nonceramic arm wands and compared them on the Graham 1.5t/VPI TNT combo. Same basic difference.
I never did answer the “why” question, nor did I expect to. Like loudspeakers, cartridges usually do sound very different from one another, and especially at this price point. They have “character.” And while in the ideal audiophile world we shoot for accuracy, not for compensating colorations to achieve neutrality, in the world of $300 cartridges that’s not really possible. Hell, it’s not really possible in the world of $3000 cartridges, but many of those come much closer to neutrality than do either of these.
So while Shure’s been on the American scene since the inception of stereo, Audio-Technica’s arrival came sometime in the mid-1970s. Since then the company, whose cartridges are made in Japan, has issued a number of well-regarded moving-magnet and moving-coil cartridges. Currently, the MM ML-150 and the MC OC-9 are at the top of Audio-Technica’s roster.
The ML-150 features Audio-Technica’s Vector-Aligned V-shaped magnet system, wherein the two magnets are positioned to match the left and right channels in the record groove. AT claims the arrangement yields “outstanding channel separation, low distortion, and superb tracing performance.” The 150 tracked beautifully at 1.25gm, handling the heaviest-modulated music grooves I could throw at it; its lateral and vertical resonance points on the Rega RB 900 arm were within the ideal ranges.
The 150 also features a gold-coated Beryllium cantilever and a MicroLine stylus that resembles the shape of a cutter stylus, and which AT claims provides for better high-frequency response, less wear, and lower distortion “…than with earlier configurations.”
The 150’s coils are wound with PCOCC wire (Pure Copper by Ohno Continuous Casting), which is formed from a high-temperature extrusion die that produces “…copper with virtually no transverse crystal barriers to impede signal transmission or color sound.” The 150 features a Mu-Metal shield between the coils for (claimed) better separation, and an anti-resonance ceramic mounting base.
Speaking of which, mounting the ML 150 was kind of a pain; if you’re not careful, the nuts can end up interfering with the stylus assembly you’ve removed for safekeeping. After you’ve attached the cartridge body to the arm, if you haven’t used the shortest possible screws and the round nuts, you’ll find that the stylus assembly won’t snap into place when you try to reattach it. A minor annoyance. However, the AT does mate well mechanically with the Rega’s preset VTA.
Sound Quality
Once installed, the 150 jumped out at me with its very “fast” sonic presentation. Compared to the Shure’s warm comfort, the AT sounded exciting and “snappy,” more like a moving-coil cartridge. Without sounding too “edgy,” the AT did an outstanding job of delineating boundaries between images and space. Transient attack throughout the spectrum was taut, with well-articulated bass and crisp yet natural-sounding high frequencies.
The result was less murk and better spotlighting toward the back of the soundstage, which also appeared slightly wider than the Shure’s. Reproducing massed strings, for instance, the Audio-Technica let me hear the individual players better than the Shure, which tended to homogenize them.
If your system sounds too slow, too laid-back, too rich, you might be a candidate for the Audio-Technica; it was moving-coil–like in its speed and extension, and in its ability to recover inner detail. The ML 150 was fast and lithe, and it too was an excellent tracker, though it emphasized transient information throughout the audio spectrum at the expense of the harmonic envelope.
I heard more detail with the Audio-Technica: when singers “doubled” their voices, for instance, each individual track was easier to follow. For better or worse, individual microphones on multimiked recordings were easier to pick out. Bells had more shimmer, metal guitar strings more bite, reeds more “reediness.”
At first it seemed that the Audio-Technica was the clearly superior cartridge, and in terms of “event” information it was. But after a while its lack of harmonic richness robbed music, particularly symphonic music, of its lush splendor. It was kind of like eating rich food when you have a cold—you taste it, but only so far. On male voices—particularly baritones—I got plenty of head and mouth but not enough chest. Female voices could sound like “mouths in space,” detached from heads and bodies. Reverberant tails tended to dry up before they’d run their natural courses, which made large spaces seem small, and small ones almost nonexistent.
Compared to the Shure, the Audio-Technica, despite its superior information retrieval, began to sound thin and gray—as if the music were coming through a scrim that wasn’t letting all of the colors through. “The harmonic envelope, please!” I kept telling myself.
While the Audio-Technica’s bass extension was prodigious in terms of the fundamental, it shortsheeted the rich harmonic that makes a timpani sound like more than just a membrane. With the Shure I got more of the kettle and less of the mallet hitting the drumhead. And so it went, up and down the spectrum. (I’ll spare you a few dozen examples; I’m certain you get the picture.)
Conclusions
You simply can’t have it all for $300. But you can have a lot (footnote 1). Both of these cartridges feature superb tracking at under 1½gm, with the Shure gaining the upper hand on warped records because of its stabilizer brush. Within the limits of their individual characters (the Shure was slow, rich, and soft, the Audio-Technica fast, lean, and detailed), both cartridges gave a very believable presentation of music, with the kind of overall image focus and instrumental clarity no digital front-end matches, in my listening experience.
So which cartridge is better? And would I recommend a moving-magnet cartridge over a similarly priced high-output moving-coil? Either one of these moderately priced cartridges will match or out-track the finest moving-coil, and do it at 1 or 1.25gm vs about 2. And you can replace the stylus in about five seconds—something you can’t do with any current moving-coil cartridge. No $300 moving-coil cartridge features the high-tech, low-mass stylus/cantilever systems either one of these MM cartridges offers. But I wouldn’t use either of these high-compliance cartridges on a high-mass arm, or on most linear trackers. No problem on the Rega arms, though.
The Shure V15-VMR? The Audio-Technica? (Or even that long-term favorite, Sumiko’s Blue Point?) I can’t answer that question for you. Both cartridges offer a lot of music for a very reasonable price. Some of you will find the Shure too sweet, too rich, too slow and boring; some will find the Audio-Technica too thin and lean. Nor can I tell you what Grado’s new wooden-bodied entrant at this price point sounds like. (But I’m reviewing the $1200 top of that line, and it’s awfully good.)
Which of these two cartridges is better? It depends on what you need. Speed and detail? Go for the Audio-Technica. Warmth and richness? Go for the Shure. Want both? Go for your wallet and head into costlier territory.
Footnote 1: Though the AT’s suggested list price is $400 and the Shure’s is $300, I’ve seen both advertised for around $250 mail-order.
NEXT: Specifications »
COMPANY INFO
Audio-Technica
Audio-Technica U.S., Inc
1221 Commerce Dr
Stow, OH 44224
330-686-2600
www.audio-technica.com
ARTICLE CONTENTS
Page 1
Specifications
Click Here: Celtic football tracksuit