AT-VM540ML and a Technics 1200

Hi!

Long-time forum lurker, first time poster. I've read a number of threads that touched on this issue in different capacities, but a lot of the responses went straight over my head so I thought I'd pose my specific question directly.

I had been using a Technics SL-Q2 with an AT-VM95ML cartridge as my primary turntable via a Kenwood KR-5400 receiver. Then recently I acquired a Technics 1200-MK5 that I've been playing through the same setup. I'm a big fan of the 95ML and thought that it might be nice to upgrade it, since I've also upgraded my deck. The 540ML seemed like the obvious choice.

But after looking at this forum for a while, I've been seeing posts suggesting that the 540ML is the wrong mass or raises issues with respect to capacitance, so I'm super confused. Would it work with my setup or should I just be happy with the 95ML? I like the value proposition of this line of carts (sub $300), along with the microline stylus. And the Nagaoka MP-200 and up start costing gobs of money; the idea of paying hundreds of dollars each time to replace one of those styli when they're not as long-lasting seems crazy to me.

Anyway, thanks for your time!

 

The capacitance spec for the VM540ML is the same as the VM95ML, 100-200pf, no difference there. One difference between the 2 cartridges that you are picking up on is the "compliance". Compliance can be thought of like suspension. In this case the suspension of the cantilever on the cartridge. The 540 is a tad heavier than the 95 and is considered medium compliance vs. the compliance of the lighter 95ML is a bit lower. A lot of Technics tonearms/headshells are considered to be medium-light and pair better with lower-compliance cartridges. Some folks will add mass to their low-mass tonearms (aux counterweight, heavier headshell) to accommodate a heavier/higher compliance cartridge. Some people also spend thousands of dollars on interconnects.
The ML cartridges are awesome and there are many folks enjoying both the 95 and 540 on Technics tonearms. I have a 95ML and SH that I use on my Technics and unless something else gets my attention my next cartridge will be a 750SH.

 

I have both and have tried both on an mk2. I prefer the 540ml. I think it has slightly less tracking error to my ears and sounds just slightly more detailed. It might be placebo but that’s my thoughts. Both are really great carts though and the 95ml is way too good for its price.

 

I’m also using the 540ML on the 1200 (a GR and a MK-3) and have absolutely no complaints on the sound I’m getting!

 

The 540ML body is a 4-coil design, while the 95ML is 2-coil. The 4-coil has better high frequency response, so if your system capacitance is on the high side and you find the 540ML bright, some people will recommend the 95ML instead. So, despite identical capacitance specs, if your capacitance is high, you may find the 540ML brighter than you might like.

I have both on a 1210GR. I prefer the 540ML. It has a more refined top end when properly loaded. It's just about indistinguishable from a CD source on my system when identical digital masters are used. I bought the 95ML to see how much I'd be missing and it's noticeable. Compliance isn't a problem on the 1200-series arms.

About other comparably priced cartridges like MP200 or 750SH, those aren't better in any case, mostly just different sound signatures and won't track better than the 540ML.

 

I don't disagree with what is being suggested here, but some terminology is being misused. Low mass tonearm work well with the high compliance cartridges. So you wouldn't add more mass in this case. The issue being confused is that heavier compliance is lower not higher. Compliance is stated as number by the manufacturer, it denotes the how springy the suspension is. And lower springiness works better with high mass arms. What is being suggested is that y0u would add more mass to a light tonearm to allow better compatibility with cartridges that have lower compliance values.

 

Really appreciative of all of these thoughtful responses! Extremely helpful. So, would you all advise I mount a 540 to an original Technics headshell (given the weight of the cart), or is it equally fine to use a pre-mounted one? Thanks again.

 

I have used both on a 1200MK2 and definitely prefer the 540ML. Even though it is higher compliance than the 95ML, and therefore a less optimal match with the Technics tonearm, I find that it both sounds better and tracks better (easily apparent during the cannon blasts on Telarc 1812). According to some here, that is at least partially due to the difference in cantilevers. In my opinion, the 540ML is a worthy upgrade.

 

Asked this above to the crowd, but do you use a Technics headshell with it or the Audio Technica one with which it comes pre-mounted?

 

The stock Technics headshells are fairly light (7.6 grams), which is good with higher compliance and heavier cartridges.
I would use that one.

 

Great! That's what I'll do. Thank you!

 

Running a pre-mounted 540ML on a 1200MK2 (so it's on the AT headshell). When I got it, I adjusted the alignment to Baerwald, and was very pleased by the overall performance compared to the ellipticals I had been using to that point.

HOWEVER, some time later, I got the KAB fluid damper and installed that, and it made an immediate pronounced improvement to the tracking ability (most noticeable on a few discs with pronounced edge warps), and small improvements to the bass response, detail, and imaging. It may be worth doing some reading and considering this addition with this cart - I believe it was in my case.

 

Yeah, I've been considering the fluid damper. May still do that. Just wanted to get a sense of how it sounds without first. Opted to buy the cartridge without the headshell and to mount it to a Technics one. Will align to the overhang gauge probably because I had good results with my 95ML.

 

I concur, those TD-1200/TD-1000 tonearm dampers are great for higher compliance cartridges!
I have been using one with my 2M Black cartridge, which is also a higher compliance cartridge and the improvement in bass response and especially tracking was improved more than I expected.
Definitely worth considering.

 

I have a bone stock M3D and Mk5 and recently got a VM740ML on significant discount. I have been running a VM95ML for the last couple months, and the difference between the two, to me, is not large. I hooked the 740 up to a lower end 100pf phono pre and it did clean up the sound a bit and smoothed out the highs, so the built-in phono in my Kenwood 8006 is likely higher than 100pf but I’ve never been able to officially confirm. I’d suggest figuring out the input capacitance on your 5400 first as you’ll need at most 100pf to get the correct FR/sound from the 540. IMO the 540/740 wouldn’t be enough of an upgrade to justify the full retail price, the 95Ml just punches well above its weight class.

 

I purchased a VM540ML a few months ago. The A-T Headshell the cart was pre-mounted to did not sync with my Technics SL-1210GR, meaning a ZERO VTA setting produced a tail high cart, which was cause for surface noise, as well as a too forward sound stage. At any rate, re-mounting the cart to a Technics shell and aligning it to the Technics tracking error scheme, the cart is indistinguishable from my Shure V15V-MR and Shure V15V/Jico Boron SAS from Technics interconnects to Parasound P6's phono stage, whereby all of these carts exhibit detail and tone from LPs similar to detail and tone as delivered from SACDs and CDs of same music selection. I do not find the VM540ML to be "bright"; but, I do find it to be a brilliant low cost solution to get all there is in the groove to get: great tracking, detail, smooth frequency response. and nice sound stage.

 

Thanks for this. I opted to buy the cart and plan to mount it to a Technics headshell to maximize compliance. I assume the capacitance issues won't be drastically different from those of the 95ML so I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

Well, unfortunately the 540/740 are a bit different as they call for 200pf max total in their specs which is why the high end can get out of wack when going over that number. There are some other 540 threads here that discuss it in more depth, but they are more sensitive to capacitance than the 95ML which is pretty flat in response out of the box. May be a good time to budget in a potential phono upgrade.

 

The pre-mounted A-T cart will work on Technics turntables with 6mm mat but not with ones with 3mm mat, which sets the cart tail high even at ZERO VTA setting. Also, the pre-mount cart stylus to headshell tail distance is set to 52.5mm, while the Technics tracking error scheme requires the stylus to headshell tail distance be set to 52mm, so some accounting for these anomalies might be useful when initially aligning the cart for best performance from it.

 

Ugh (smacks forehead). Can't afford another upgrade!

 

Okay, cool. I'll bear that in mind. I'm using a thicker Technics rubber mat, but I have a felt one that I can try, too, if I find that it's sounding off.

 

The issue is the Technics Turntables which come with a 3mm mat have a VTA adjustment geometry that sets a 17mm tall cart to be level at ZERO VTA setting using the stock Technics Headshell. Using the A-T Headshell the cart will be tail high at the ZERO setting and thus will not yield the as desired performance, until the cart is shimmed or a higher 6mm mat is placed on the platter. In your case this information may just be academic since I think your TT has a 6mm mat.

 

Yeah, I also opted to just get the cart so I could mount it to a Technics headshell, which will hopefully help.

 

I’m using the AT headshell on both. No real reason other than that it matches!

It seems to be a fair bit heavier than the Technics one but that’s not really a problem, you just have to remember it when rebalancing your arm and setting up your tracking force.

 

If I were running the 540 on a 1200 I'd want low capacitance at the preamp and low capacitance cabling. I'd also want the KAB damper.

If listening or a frequency response test shows some peaking at the high end still you can try loading the cart at 39K with some loading plugs. That will smooth out the high-end a bit.