• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Introducing the Phono Cartridge Measurement Library

I measured the tracking at 1.8 grams. What is written on these sites, why it is written and who wrote it, you need to ask the owner of the sites. Any cartridge can be configured for any VTF, the question is what tracking you will get. On the websites that I look at it says 1.5-2.5 grams, which agrees with my measurements.
Well I think that official manufacturer website is the best source, and I don’t understand why you are being so dismissive. I believe I also provided enough secondary evidence supporting the heavier ~3g spec

You simply may not have done it justice by measuring it at 1.8g. I have little idea how much that would affect FR measurements, but deviating so much from manufacturer specifications doesn’t seem right. Maybe you would be so kind to try out at least the tracking test at 3g?
 
I thought the 3600L was a 3g tracker, the similar looking AT91(or posh-named version Rega Carbon) being the 2g tracker (the Carbon sounds very 'nice' at 2g but awful at 3g!). Body is identical I believe.
 
Posting in the proper place now :)

Goldring 1042

I've been curious about this cartridge for a while, but hadn't been able to find any measurements online.

This is a truly low compliance MM cartridge (16 mm/N vertical) fitted with an advanced stylus cut, something fairly rare these days. It uses a Gyger S, at approximately 5/120 µm.

Contrary to some dubious internet rumors, it is not manufactured in China; "Made in England" is still very prominently stamped on the top of the cartridge body.

I fitted it to a Technics EPA-A501L tonearm wand, at 18g effective mass.

View attachment 416673

And now, for the measurements:

At 1.8g

View attachment 416674
Not bad at all, and certainly better than I expected for this cartridge with a relatively high tip mass of 0.45 mg!

2.0g

View attachment 416675
Now let's add 200 more pF of capacitance via a loading plug...

View attachment 416676
Look at that peak and roll-off! This cartridge is definitely capacitance-sensitive.

Now for the bad: at 2.0g, this cartridge only makes it through the 50 and 60 µm bands of the Ortofon test record. At 2.5g (well outside the recommended range of 1.5-2.0g), it just barely makes it through the 70 µm band. Interestingly enough, the Audio Note IQ-III, a rebadged/upgraded variant, extends that range to 2.5g.

Overall, a mixed bag, though I am impressed with its relative flatness compared to much of what we see today. Channel matching and distortion are also good.

IMO, very overpriced at the US MSRP of $699, but it can be gotten from Europe for a bit over $300.

I think it’s a good choice if you are partial to low-compliance cartridges and high mass tonearms.
The 1042 is the same in response to its predecessors of the 80s, either rolling down straight with low capacitance or peaking well up at 10K followed by a death dive above with higher capacitance. In my rig, the latter was the result and it wasn't pleasant at all. The HiFi Choice cartridge books (worldradiohistory site has them scanned in) tested the old G900/910 and immediately previous 1040 models. Must admit I can't believe the prices asked today, even in the UK (edit - the 10** series Goldrings *did* seem to work and sound fine in a Rega 2 and 3, for what it's worth).
 
Last edited:
I'm following the thread and it's great, but I can't find connection between measured results and price/sound/audiophile rating. Is there any?
 
Here are some measurements of the Goldring 1042 through a different phono stage with less capacitance. Pretty flat, I'd say!

I do wonder what causes that repeatable blip in the right channel at around 13 kHz - I've seen something similar in a DL-103.




Goldring 1042_1.7 g_~80 pF_47k Ω_CA-TRS-1007 #1 - Side B_norm1_3_17.0_12-30-24.png
Goldring 1042_2.5 g_~80 pF_47k Ω_CA-TRS-1007 #1 - Side B_norm1_2_17.0_12-30-24.png
 
The frequency response only seems to tell part of the story. Going back to Jurassic times, a Shure V15 T2 and descended M75-ED used to have a strong 'communicative' bass and midrange, the mid-hf suckout a 'restraint' rather than a dullness as such I feel (I have a V15 T2 with 'new original' VN15E stylus with minutes on it rather than hours. My Stanton 681EEE also, with it's tailing down at hf response, sounds 'gentle' rather than dull. To me at least, and using a variety of decks/arms over the years, modern Grado's just sound dull in models over the cheapest one and the lower priced Sumiko MMs, like the so-many models related to them in the past, again, put the emphasis on the bass and lower mids, the top region almost a definite afterthought to my ears (when they were ok). I found the comparison of the similar measuring (response) V15 III and III-HE very interesting, as the HE tip and whatever other tweaks might or might not have been done, opened the sound out a little more (the HiFi Choice test shows the tech side - discs used in the lengthy introduction at the beginning of the tests - as well as possible suspect subjectivist comments). before the weather cooled down here, I dug out my very low hours B&O MMC20CL (in later black half-inch mount) and it sounded absolutely delightful, in colder weather the suspension goes off and it goers a bit sull and bland (this was known about at the time).

So yeah, the basic response does help to gauge a basic tonal nature I think (end of side compared to beginning of side as well which Denon 103 lovers tend to ignore ;) ) but as with speakers, how our ears/brains perceive it, I feel depends on several other factors I think.
 
Last edited:
Well I think that official manufacturer website is the best source, and I don’t understand why you are being so dismissive. I believe I also provided enough secondary evidence supporting the heavier ~3g spec

You simply may not have done it justice by measuring it at 1.8g. I have little idea how much that would affect FR measurements, but deviating so much from manufacturer specifications doesn’t seem right. Maybe you would be so kind to try out at least the tracking test at 3g?
I can try both 2.5 grams and 3.0 grams. But this cartridge was made in China, so it is possible that it is AT91. As far as I can imagine, the only difference between them is how much tighter the generator string was pulled.

AT-3600 CA-TRS1007 (01.01.2025)  (19 min) (1.8g) 20-20k.pngAT-3600 CA-TRS1007 (01.01.2025)  (25 min) (2.5g) 20-20k.pngAT-3600 CA-TRS1007 (01.01.2025)  (25 min) (3.0g) 20-20k.png
 
Last edited:
The frequency response only seems to tell part of the story. Going back to Jurassic times, a Shure V15 T2 and descended M75-ED used to have a strong 'communicative' bass and midrange, the mid-hf suckout a 'restraint' rather than a dullness as such I feel (I have a V15 T2 with 'new original' VN15E stylus with minutes on it rather than hours. My Stanton 681EEE also, with it's tailing down at hf response, sounds 'gentle' rather than dull. To me at least, and using a variety of decks/arms over the years, modern Grado's just sound dull in models over the cheapest one and the lower priced Sumiko MMs, like the so-many models related to them in the past, again, put the emphasis on the bass and lower mids, the top region almost a definite afterthought to my ears (when they were ok). I found the comparison of the similar measuring (response) V15 III and III-HE very interesting, as the HE tip and whatever other tweaks might or might not have been done, opened the sound out a little more (the HiFi Choice test shows the tech side - discs used in the lengthy introduction at the beginning of the tests - as well as possible suspect subjectivist comments). before the weather cooled down here, I dug out my very low hours B&O MMC20CL (in later black half-inch mount) and it sounded absolutely delightful, in colder weather the suspension goes off and it goers a bit sull and bland (this was known about at the time).

So yeah, the basic response does help to gauge a basic tonal nature I think (end of side compared to beginning of side as well which Denon 103 lovers tend to ignore ;) ) but as with speakers, how our ears/brains perceive it, I feel depends on several other factors I think.
I would tend to agree with you about there being more to a cartridge sound than frequency response but where is the evidence. I would think the cartridge distortion profile would have a lot of say in the quality of the cartridge but I haven’t seen any evidence of this.
 
All else being equal, I’ve yet to see differentiation after FR is normalized when there are no geometric issues, and distortion is typical (i.e. not broken).

Whet I do see is people not understanding how small response changes can manifest - that takes some fair experimentation.
 
I would tend to agree with you about there being more to a cartridge sound than frequency response but where is the evidence. I would think the cartridge distortion profile would have a lot of say in the quality of the cartridge but I haven’t seen any evidence of this.
I could come up with a theory or three, but that's all it is and I have no objective evidence to back it up. 50k or whatever ringing in many MC types and damed or undamped suspensions may possibly contribute something in the audio band. I remember the Koetsu Red and Onyx original versions, dealing with surface noise as if through a noise-gate, all but muting the noise and taking aweay far-depth effects while presenting a kind of 'loudness switch' balance. Thge Koetsu Black models were far more honest in reproduction, but didn't sound as 'nice' which is why they were so much cheaper..... Other MCs to me, used to add a kind of 'halo' over the reproduction which is darned attractive, but 'wrong' in the presence of a master grade or today, digital source...

...I did say it's supposition with no real evidence, but that's vinyl for you. Got to say though that most high end (read 'expensive' turntable systems are limited only by the ****** black plastic discs played on them rather than performance and a good clean pressing of a well cut album or especially a 45rpm 12" single from the days when the limiters were turned off for such cuts, can sound superb.
 
АT-3600L l 2.0g l 47k l 130pF l

- stylus - looks new under microscope, hours unknown
- tracking at 2.0g >70mkm
-L 497 Ohm, 446 mH
-R 478 Ohm, 453 mH

1tr, 1-track = outer sweep
2tr, 2-track = inner sweep
1 АT-3600L l 2.0g l 47k l 130pF l CA-TRS1007 l temp=24gr.c. l Side B outer sweep.0.png
 

Attachments

  • 4 АT-3600L l 2.0g l 47k l 130pF l Ortofon-TR l temp=24gr.c. l Side A outer sweep.png
    4 АT-3600L l 2.0g l 47k l 130pF l Ortofon-TR l temp=24gr.c. l Side A outer sweep.png
    250.1 KB · Views: 33
  • 3 АT-3600L l 2.0g l 47k l 130pF l CA-TRS1007 l temp=24gr.c. l Side B inner sweep.1.png
    3 АT-3600L l 2.0g l 47k l 130pF l CA-TRS1007 l temp=24gr.c. l Side B inner sweep.1.png
    252 KB · Views: 32
  • 2 АT-3600L l 2.0g l 47k l 130pF l CA-TRS1007 l temp=24gr.c. l Side B outer sweep.1.png
    2 АT-3600L l 2.0g l 47k l 130pF l CA-TRS1007 l temp=24gr.c. l Side B outer sweep.1.png
    267.6 KB · Views: 34
Some cheap, budget cartridges have a frequency response very similar to the frequency response of much more expensive models of cartridges.

Does this mean that they play very similarly?

For example, the Audio Technica 3600 and, for example, the Audio Technica VM540?

No, they don't. Just compare the two cartridges mentioned above with your ear to see that the above-mentioned cartridges play completely differently. The sound quality is dramatically different. A completely different class of sound.

This frequency response test will not tell us at all what class of sound we will get.

This test is also false because it does not take into account, or rather has been cut out, the tonearm of the turntable, and what the given cartridge works with.

Just do a simple test, mount the same cartridge on two different class turntables, to see that the same cartridge plays differently.
 
Some cheap, budget cartridges have a frequency response very similar to the frequency response of much more expensive models of cartridges.

Does this mean that they play very similarly?

For example, the Audio Technica 3600 and, for example, the Audio Technica VM540?

No, they don't. Just compare the two cartridges mentioned above with your ear to see that the above-mentioned cartridges play completely differently. The sound quality is dramatically different. A completely different class of sound.

This frequency response test will not tell us at all what class of sound we will get.

This test is also false because it does not take into account, or rather has been cut out, the tonearm of the turntable, and what the given cartridge works with.

Just do a simple test, mount the same cartridge on two different class turntables, to see that the same cartridge plays differently.
Under double-blind conditions?
 
Enough of the ear flexing please or I'm going to dump quite a few posts into the neverending messurements telling the whole story thread .
 
No blind tests are needed here.

The difference between the AT-3600 and the AT-VM540ML can be heard by anyone who is not deaf, and after putting the headphones together and listening carefully, even a deaf person will notice the difference. :)

In the case of earphones of similar class, the difference can be subtle or very difficult to notice.
See post above from me . I'm deleting this . We don't want this thread to go the way many do, thanks .
 
Sumiko Blue Point

This is the original model that used a P-Mount body, apparently because they found a stock of them for another cartridge that never made it to production.

Accordingly, I mounted it to my Technics SH-90S adapter.

Stylus wear is unknown, although it doesn't sound worn to me, listening via headphones. Of course, this is not an appropriate method of determining actual wear.

tempImage6Zhqwj.png

Sumiko Blue Point_1.7 g_~80 pF_47k Ω_CA-TRS-1007 #1 - Side B_norm1_2_17.0_01-05-25.png
Sumiko Blue Point_2.0 g_~80 pF_47k Ω_CA-TRS-1007 #1 - Side B_norm1_1_17.0_01-05-25.png
 
Sumiko Blue Point

This is the original model that used a P-Mount body, apparently because they found a stock of them for another cartridge that never made it to production.

Accordingly, I mounted it to my Technics SH-90S adapter.

Stylus wear is unknown, although it doesn't sound worn to me, listening via headphones. Of course, this is not an appropriate method of determining actual wear.

View attachment 418980
View attachment 418992View attachment 418993

Mine was completely worn.


Sumiko Blue Point - Denon DP-35F - CBS²ᶜ - 2.png


It's always fascinating to see how the frequency response is not affected by wear (at the outer groove). However toward the inner groove you'll definitely hear the difference with respect to distortion, sibilance, etc.

I still can't believe how wild people (including myself) were over an elliptical cartridge in the 90s and early 2000s.
 
Back
Top Bottom