AT440MLa

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

The Quadfather

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
QQ Supporter
Since 2002/2003
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
1,587
Location
Dixie
I recently ordered an Audio Technica AT440ML cartridge, and they subsituted an AT440MLa cartridge. They appear to be about the same except that the "a" version does not have the extended frequency response. I read somewhere that they didn't rate the extended response because they changed the manufacturing technique, and could not guarantee it. Has anyone attempted to use an AT440MLa for CD-4? If so, how well did it perform?

The Quadfather
 
I bought one, MLa, about a month ago. After aligning the cartridge and everything, it turns on the 'ol radar, and decodes nicely. I never had an ML to compare, but it works just fine so far.
 
I wrote to Garage a Records and they said that the specs are the same, but they changed the way they rated them. So I reckon I'll give it a shot

The Quadfather
 
Well, I went ahead and mounted my AT440MLa cartridge. It doesn't stand as tall as the AT331LC does, due to the fact that it was made for a half inch mount instead of a P mount. (the P mount adapter on the other cart adds heigth) It came with shorter interconnect wires which I used. I put it on the tonearm of my Marantz turntable without alignment. I used the old cart and shell as a measure to get it close. I put on a record and the radar light pops on.I turned down the separation pots. Now normally, at this point, one would adjust the carrier level pot to obtain the least amount of distortion, however, there wasn't any distortion or sandpaper scratching. So I adjusted the pot for the best tonal quality. If you turn it too high you lose the high end, so I turned it all the way up and backed down until I got a robust sounding signal. I then adjusted the separation pots in the normal fashion. I tracked the turntable at 1 1/2 grams, and this proved to be slightly too light and I had to increase it a quarter gram. Still it was better than the two grams I was using with the Trackmaster 8 (AT331LC).

After a channel check, and one in SQ mode, I put on a quadradisc. What I heard was surprising. The cymbals were clearer and the drums had a sharper attack. But it was a little shrill and there was a sibilance problem. I determined the sibilance problem to be due to excessive peakiness in the high end, and I supressed it with the treble control and the 10KHZ filters on my Sansui amplifiers. Still there was plenty of high end and it was good. I would rather supress the treble and have plenty of strong subcarrier for the demodulator than have an inferior demodulated difference signal. Supressing the treble got rid of the shrillness also, so now I was ready to enjoy CD-4 in all of it's intended splendor.

And it was quite good! I look forward to listening to more CD-4 records tonight "for the first time", for I have never heard them sound so good. The AT440MLa is a go for CD-4, and a good replacement for the Trackmaster 8. It costs about twice as much (about a hundred bucks) and the stylus is a good bit more expensive (around 80 bucks) than one for an AT331LC, but I believe you will find the improved performance to be well worth the extra price. The AT331LC is discontinued and so is it's stylus, making the move inevitable anyway. The AT440MLa is a new variant of a proven design, and it will hopefully be around for awhile.

Note, I have had to supress treble on my Pioneer DVD-A player for the same reason, so I will just not have to adjust the amplifiers as much now, as the ideal settings will be closer for each device. And I can't wait until the stylus gets broken in, and I get the alignment correctly done, it's sure to sound even better!

The Quadfather
 
The following words appear on the garage-a-records web site:
Note: Regarding recent changes from AT440ML to the AT440MLa-Audio Technica response: Because we are unable to accurately verify cartridge performance above 20kHz or below 20Hz., on all new cartridge models we will not publish specifications above 20kHz due to the inherent problems involved in properly verifying performance above 20kHz. However, the AT440MLa uses the same tip design as the AT440ML did, and that only minor changes were made due to discontinuation of some of the parts necessary to continue with the old design. Every effort was made to assure that the AT440MLa performed as well or better than the previous AT440ML.


Quadfather, thanks for bringing this issue to my attention as it is an iteresting revelation. I have a 440ML that I have been using for nerarly two years. On AT's web site it says that the MLa is new and improved, but is it really so? The specs don't seem to indicate that the new version is improved. I know that specs don't tell the whole story like the ears do, but still the changes to the specs are more than just fluff.

The original 440ML that I use had these specs: 5.0mV output, 30 db (at 1 kHz)/20 db(at 10kHz), 0.8-1.6 grams tracking force (1.25 recommended), 0.75 db channel balance, and 5-32kHz frequency responce, 47kOhm impeadance

The new 440MLa has these specs 4.0mV output, 27db (at 1kHz) with no rating at 10kHz, and 1.0-1.8 grams of tracking force (1.4 recommended), 0.8 db Channel balance and 20-20kHz frequency responce, 47kOhm impedance

I find that these spec changes are pretty interesting. AT refuses to rate the cartridge under 20hz or over 20kHz even though they are still keeping the 50kHz rating on AT-OC9ML/II. According to garage-a-records, "Every effort was made to assure that the AT440MLa performed as well or better than the previous AT440ML." But can these changes really be considered improvements...I don't know. they also raise an interesting question: if I replace the stylus on my 440ML with a 440MLa stylus, what specs will I have now and what tracking force range should I use?



IN A SEPARATE QUESTION FOR QUADFATHER, OR ANYONE ELSE USING A 440ML FOR CD-4
Quadfather, are you now running 1.75 grams? Also, what kind of anti-skating are you using?
I have used 1.5 grams of tracking force and 1 gram of anti-skate and that seems to work pretty well on all CD-4s except one that was trashed by a previous owner. My cartridge has been adjusted with a Mofi Geodisc.
After you hav adjusted your turntable, please report back with your tracking force and anti-skate settings.
 
Last edited:
Hey Quad Mike:
It is my understanding that the stylus is the same, and only the cartridge is "upgraded". I have never used an AT440ML so I have only my previous cart to compare it to, which it out performs. I do know that it doesn't lack high end, including the subcarrier portion. I turned the carrier level all the way down and it was still putting out a good difference signal (carrier level does not correlate to volume level of the difference signal. If it's too low, it will break up.

As I mentioned the final adjustments have not been made, it has just been roughed in. I expect that the antiskate is set for two grams as I have not readjusted it. I increased the weight when I discovered a wandering buzz in the background, indicating that the record didn't have complete control of the stylus. It may well be that a superior fix would have been to reduce the antiskate, and I will get around to all the proper adjustments. Anyway, the increase in weight seems to have taken care of the buzz.

As I have mentioned before, I am not a "golden eared audiophile" so if I say it sounds better, the difference is quite noticeable. I think I will be quite happy with this product.

The Quadfather
 
I use the ML version, which I think is wonderful. Now in my setup it has 2.0 grams on tracking force and 2 in anti-skate.
I tried different values but it sounds best at 2 grams IMO.

The only difference I see is a lower output (3dB less), which I think is better (especially when setting up carrier level on a cd-4 demod).
In fact the AT-440ML is "famous" to have too much highs, and -3dB should give more room for a good cd-4 setup.
 
Has anyone done a side-by-side comparison of the 440ML and 440MLa, not for quad abilities, but general sound? I've heard complaints that the 440ML was too bright; I'm wondering if the 440MLa is any less so.
 
I believe I saw that on the Steve Hoffman forum. Since I do not own a 440ML I cannot do this comparison, but as I have remarked, the 440MLa is very bright on the high end. There is even someone discussing adding capacitors across the input and ground to tone it down, but I believe that would have a detrimental effect for CD-4 use. However, you could do it beyond the demodulator. I tone it down with the treble pots on the amp. I might add equalizers later to control it a little more precicely, but for now the tone controls do the job well enough.

The Quadfather
 
Would you say it's significantly brighter than the 8008?
 
I have played maybe 10 or 12 CD-4 records and some stereo records with my AT440MLa and it's just getting smoother as it breaks in. Until they quit making stylii for this one, I will have no reason to change carts. I am very pleased.

The Quadfather
 
Quadfather,

I am blown away myself. I just can't get over how great this sounds, for CD4, SQ/Qs and stereo. It also held the mono field properly on my Hendrix-Axis LP accurately, now that I have it properly aligned.
 
I'm finding that it tracks best at about two grams. I tried to track it lighter, but 2 grams just works best.

The Quadfather
 
hi guys how you all doing? first my turntable is the audio techinca at 120Lp and I have the at 440 LMA for 1 year and believe me it tracks like a champ. then I have the AT 95E which came with my turntable so I found out I could order the shibata tip from

LP gear so I ordered that got that last week. now the 440 it go from 20 to about 32 htz and the at 95E with the shibata goes 20 to 22. but one thing I noticed is the 440MLA I hardly hear any surface noise. now the 440 is the mirco line and the AT95SA is the

replacement stylus and the at 95SA I hear a lot more surface noise but on the 440 mla with the mirco line tip so my question why when I play the at 95SA with the shibata tip has more surface noise and when I play the 440 MLA it has a lot less?

also I bought the AT 12SA phono cartridge for 85.00 but with out the stylus, so I am going to order the genuine replacement for that cartridge from LP gear as they do have a few of the genuine replacement for it and not from Jilco.

thanks
huggy
 
I would assume that is because the Microline stylus is an improvement on the old Shibata design. It fits the groove better and tends to clean it out. If you ever bought a CD-4 record at a garage sale and it was a bit dirty, You probably dredged up some dirt after the first couple of plays, even after you cleaned the disc before play. Also, some of that surface noise might be mild tracking noise, or the stylus's failure to track the fine CD-4 subcarrier modulations. Go with what sounds best!
The Quadfather
 
Quad father, thanks for the answer. the at 95E with the shiabata replacement stylus even when I play SQ quad records and regular stereo I hear more surface noise using that cartridge, but when I use the AT 440MLA the surface noise is gone. and so

I called Audio Techinca in Stow Ohio as I live in Cleveland, ohio the person I talked to told me it is recommented that the AT 440MLA is 1.4 becasue 2 grams is too heavy for that cartridge and the at 95 the recommented tracking force is 2 grams.

huggy
 
Sometimes it's just a mystery.

I have multiple styli for my 8008/331LP. Some are perfectly quiet on a few records, while others yield quite a bit of noise in certain passages. Same model of styli.

On one mono record, some of the aforementioned styli are quite noisy in one channel only, while others don't have any problems. On the same record, my 440MLa doesn't have the problem with lots of noise in one channel, but it's slightly noisier than the "good" 331LP.

I doubt tracking force has much to do with it. I've never noticed much or any difference in surface noise when playing around with tracking force.

My advice: just use whatever sounds best for a particular record and don't worry about it too much.
 
Back
Top