Audio-Technica launches new entry-level VM95 cartridge series

Where MC carts typically have a big advantage over reasonably priced MM/MI carts is stereo separation. There are exceptions of course. But to give you an idea I measured the 95ML at 27dB stereo separation, which is very good as this kind of cart. By contract, when Miller Audio Research tested the AT-OC9XSH last year (a LOMC) they measured the stereo separation at 40dB.

Note that these carts are meant for completely different types of arms, as the compliance of the OC9XSH was measured at 23CU, so it needs a fairly lightweight arm.

 

Neither do I. Matter of fact, on a well recorded LP, this cart on a good turntable is sublime.

 

To be even fairer to the AT my MCs are mounted on £2,000+ arms while it is sat on a Rega RB-600 that cost £350 when new, I did use a Gold Note PH-10 to listen to the AT though, when I get an AT of my own I will mount it on a high end arm and deck and hear what it's really capable of, I'll also dig out one of my K9 bodies and see how that compares with the same stylus, I want to hear the Shibata now.

 

It isn't like I was trying to deceive anyone.

 

Per tests MC dump a lot more mechanical energy into the arm than MMs. So you'd probably want to pay attention to the arm on the MC side.

You don't need a high end arm to get excellent performance out of an AT MM, though you may get that "extra" bit of performance by using a high end arm.

The arm I use is average quality, nothing expensive or exotic. I have a nice magnesium headshell, but again, nothing weird or very expensive. I do use a GS Reflex M + PSU-1 for the phono preamp though.

However, cheaper phono preamps should work fine with these carts as well, provided they are properly designed and the capacitance is low enough to load the cart per the manufacturer's recommendation.

 

No, of course not. It's just that the applicability of your experience to other folks may be limited.

 

Not to be argumentative, but I think all personal experiences with tables/arms/cartridges are of somewhat limited value. Let me explain...

First, three things to remember: (1) The arm configuration didn't change while comparing these cartridges. (2) I believe the compliance of the ATN112LP is actually slightly higher than that of the VM540ML. (3) The Signet + Audio Technica combo provides a bass response more akin to what I'm getting from digital while the other two seemed somewhat deficient.

So if this were a matter of straight-forward cartridge/arm matching, you wouldn't expect the cartridges on the extremes (compliance-wise) to produce less bass than the cartridge in the middle.

I think this just reinforces what Korf has been saying:

Low-frequency Arm and Cartridge Interaction, Part II

However, it is clear to me that, when applied to modern stereo cartridges, Mr Carlson's 1954 formula can at best be treated as a gross oversimplification. It might still sort of predict the resonant frequency of the system when it is excited by a pure sine LF signal of a test disc — but in real-life playback of spectrally dense material, the real resonance will differ.

Until someone comes up with a proper calculation accounting for actual elastomer properties, it's probably best to simply ignore the formula and select compliance/effective mass combinations empirically.​

 

Formulas should be used a starting point only IMHO/IME. They get tricky when you try to use Japanese compliance specs because there isn't a way to accurately convert a Japanese style spec to a Western one, which most of the calculators and formulas are based on. This is despite the fact that some people use conversion multipliers to roughly convert - that method isn't always accurate and I'd advise people not to rely on it.

What I typically do is test the cartridge playing test LP tracks as well as records of actual music, and look at the resonances using software. Korf is right that there are multiple resonances and my methods aren't as accurate as using the vibrometry equipment he uses - not even close. But they are "close enough for govt. work" if you get my drift. Doing this helps avoid gross mismatches and with this information one can decide if they want to follow the conventional wisdom, something like the B&K approach, or maybe something more esoteric.

I don't think it's a good idea to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to compliance matching. If you've ever experimented with GROSS mismatches, you'll know what I mean. I tried that one time with a 25 CU compliance cartridge on a 16-20g EM arm. To say it was a bad match was an understatement. It was easily observable visually and just by listening. The cartridge suspension bounced around and the bass was very bloated and overwhelmed most of the music - even caused my woofers to vibrate in an abnormal way. That cart was a bad match, full stop. I didn't even need to measure it because it was so obvious.

IME, most people here aren't looking for advice based on esoteric theories, they are looking for basic cart/tonearm matching using the conventional wisdom. That's the advice I usually give, based on experience and measurements as noted above. I don't only rely on the calculators.

RE: charts and calculators, I think the broad advice Ortofon gives here, is generally good if one is looking to avoid gross mismatches:

Resonance frequency

Of course the chart is based on Western compliance specs.

 

Neither do I, I just question the value of those formulas, which were derived when construction methods were substantially different and tend to oversimplify inertia by using effective mass while ignoring matters like bearing resistance and integrated damping.

 

The MLs are now even cheaper on Amazon UK, I just grabbed the last one at £107, wasn't planning on spending the money, but that's crazy performance for little more than the cost of a 2M Red, when it arrives I will stick it on my Roksan Artemiz/Xerxes 10 that should allow me to max out the cart's potential.

There's currently a Shibata listed for under £128 in case anyone is interested.

 

As I previously posted, I bought the VM95SH cartridge recently and put it in my BASIK LVX. Easy to set up and instant revelation with superb tracking and detail coming through that I had not heard before. More than a month on and I am appreciating it more and more, unlike the usual "end of the honeymoon" effect. I would be wary of just trying the new stylus with an old K9 body as there could be compatibility issues. I have never used MC cartridges except the Sumiko Bluepoint Special high output but I am quite clear that the MM VM95SH is markedly superior. I have to assume that it is the Shibata geometry that has made the difference. I would not hesitate.

 

If I had the spare cash I'd have gone for the Shibata as well, as it is I should have two MLs here for a while mounted on two different decks, my Gold Note phono stage has two inputs so I can run direct comparisons between a Technics SL 1210 MK II/RB 600 and a Roksan Xerxes 10/Artemiz with the top power supply, I have faith in the Roksan being superior, but it will be interesting to confirm how much better it is and the differences between two identical MLs. I'll see about digging a K9 body out, but if the ML is sounding great I may decide it's not worth the effort, although the ATs are a joy to mount I'm at an age where messing about with carts is no longer fun and cart swapping has lost it's appeal.

 

Sounds great! I do consider to get an AT-VM95ML as a spare cart, it’s soon time to send my Benz Micro Wood for a retip. I’ve only read positive things about the ML everywhere and it seems to be the sweetspot model of the VM series.

 

I will be very interested how you get on hear, though would be suprised if it's any less than stunning.

I have heard the ML in an Ittok LVII, on a LP12 Circused with standard sub-chassis and Lingo 2, but not a higher spec Linn, or anything above Rega Planar 6 and Technics SL-1200GR.

I've heard the Shibata in an Ittok with similar spec LP12, which also was very good - interesting that AT are quoting 1,000 hours for the ML and 800 for the SH. I haven't had the opportunity to compare directly.

Hopefully these cartridges will allow people to spend more on a better turntable, because for example, the best cartridge (whatever that is) on a Rega Planar 3 will not outperform an Audio Technica VM95ml on the Planar 6.

Back in my retail days, which was up to 1995, the Linn K9 which I recall as selling at £69, was regularly fitted to the shop's best turntable and arm combination.

 

If you do, that will be interesting. Obviously the K9 body was, a big step up from the AT95e, or Basik, but the VM body is also an improvement over the AT95, though I'm not sure about the generator assembly.

The threaded body of the VM series really is a nice touch!!


Edit. Interestingly, both of those LP12 / Ittok combinations were originally fitted with the K9 and latterly, the more expensive Goldring 1042.....

 

I just mounted a VM95SH on my Gyro SE/RB-600 yesterday, and it's very pleasant!

I thought that the reported midrange bloom of the Shibata would complement my Gyro SE/RB-600 combo, and can say that I am not disappointed.

I realize that the VM95ML has the higher performance/price ratio, but still think that the VM95SH is still an amazing value and sounds great!

I will eventually put a VM95ML on my PLX-1000 when it's time for a new stylus. I really appreciate that Audio-Technica is producing these small wonders at a modest price.

 

AT only has two basic designs for MM coil arrangements/generators. A two-coil design and a four-coil design.

There is the 95 lineage which has two larger coils mounted in a horizontal configuration. These are used on the current VM95, the old AT95, and any clone/rebranded/OEM version of the 95. That includes the K9. Only the electrical specs of the body have varied over the years, and the outer shell. But the basic generator and coil design remains the same. You can see that in the pic below.




The four coil design looks like this, with four coils mounted semi-vertically in banks of two coils with four total:




Again, the electrical specs on the four coil design have varied over the years and from model to model and series to series. The four coil design has been recently used on the 100/120/150/440 models and the newer VM500/700 series.

 

Worth mentioning is that both versions feature the paratoroidal coil arrangement, and what to me looks like split poles to help minimize internal eddy currents. Only thing that appears to be missing in the budget lineup is the mu metal shield isolating the 2 coils from each other. Still, a very efficient and well thought out design.

Would you mind explaining this? I've read it before but I don't understand the mechanism by which this is realized. Today, most MC are medium to medium-low compliance, however, there was a time when they were available in high compliances as well. Given that MC are thought to be lower moving mass, where does the extra energy come from?

 

Right, there is no shield plate in the 2 coil design. As such you'll get better separation tests on the 4 coil design. In practice, it's a not a big deal though, because I measured the 95ML at 27dB separation, which is still a very good figure. The lower level carts in the same series will have lower separation numbers, e.g. the 95C, per my measurements.

Korf wrote an article about it. It likely has to do with the difference in suspension designs with MC vs. MM. The other thing is even though the MC trend is low-medium compliance, there are still plenty of higher compliance MCs being made. AT's new OC9 series, for example, one of those was measured by Miller Audio Research to have a 23 CU Western-style compliance. That's higher compliance than the VM95.

 

I've seen that before. His graphs draw a clear relation between compliance and energy, with the M97xe at the one end and the DL 103 at the other, with medium compliance MM/MC in between. If his theory is correct, where does that place the Decca cartridges?

It's clear to me that suspension has everything to do with it and generator type very little.

 

The Deccas are an odd duck and I don't know much about them so I can't really comment on them too much.

Re: Korf's tests, I'd rather focus on the AT vs. AT test he did and not the others. Perhaps more extensive testing of MM vs. MC carts with nearly the same compliance is warranted before jumping to a conclusion.

Part of the problem is you can't put identical suspensions in an MC vs. an MM. You may have some that look similar, but due to the differences in how the carts operate, they aren't going to function the same even if they use similar rubber damping donuts.

IIRC manufacturers like Lyra have done a lot of work on the suspensions of their MC carts and the housings they use in order to manage vibration. Of course their carts are extremely expensive.

 

Sure. but you need more than 2 samples to draw a such a broad conclusion.

You're right, though, it does come down to the suspension, and that's what I'm saying. You have the Decca MI ...the proverbial nail-in-the-plank... at one end, and a Sony LX MC...designed at the peak of the low mass craze...at the other. What I'm saying is it's ALL about the suspension, and none about how the signal is generated.

 

So I just pulled the trigger on the VM95ML along with VM95C that I plan to strap to mono. I'll report back. These will go on a Technics SL-1200 Mk5, so swapping them will be a breeze. Since moving from my Marantz 2230 to a Parasound P5, I've missed having a mono switch. I thought about making a mono switch, but this seemed to be the most beneficial solution given my monos aren't always in the best condition.

 

Based on a very small sample, 3 LPs, and all in nice condition, if I were you I'd directly compare the ML against the C playing mono before you modify the C, I know that the conical should be the better choice, but I was really surprised by how nice mono sounded with the ML, could just be fluke, but I'd be really interested in someone else trying the ML on mono LPs and comparing with the C would be perfect.

My personal ML should arrive tomorrow, so in a couple of days I'll have two MLs up and running, I plan on putting several hours on mine in the coming weeks.

 

I have both carts but they are not set up for the same deck + phono pre and I don't have time to remount the "C" one right now. If I did, I would try this. My "C" model is unmodified and will stay that way. I think the ML should be fine on a lot of newer mono reissues and anything 60s and onward monos in nice shape. I would use the "C" for any old monos in rougher condition.