Comparison and detailed measurements of Audio-Technica AT3600L and AT95E phono cartridges.

[@TheStuffMade]

Audio-Technica AT3600L vs AT95E Comparison of specs and detailed measurement of: - Frequency Response - Channel Separation - Harmonic Distortion

[@camlegs2423]

I was well impressed with your unbiased review. You showed the results but took in the cost of the cartridge and still recommend the basic unit. Thank you

[@AreTwo2]

Thanks a lot for this very good review.

[@ethelryan257]

Thank you for this. It's helpful to have measurements to back up opinions. I have both cartridges in regular use with the standard stylii and my impression of the differences between the two match your results. The AT95E has a slightly more neutral tone on brand new pressings to my ears, for what it's worth. The truth of the matter is that in genuine double-blind tests, people can't really hear the difference between the outrageously expensive system components and the well-designed less expensive components. I took part in a series of them back in my college days and none of us - and that included the 'audiophiles' could consistently tell the difference between high-end vacuum tube equipment/FET equipment or the better tonearms/cartridges of the day. Suffering from perfect pitch (it is so not a gift, more a curse), I can pick up on wow and flutter variations which most people blessedly don't hear, but the rest? Purely subjective and totally inconsistent. On a worn record, the AT3600L sounds better than any other cartridges I have. I assume this is due to the way the conical stylus rides in the grooves. Side note, the Rega unit has been tested by several people and they all find it to be within tolerances the exact same cartridge, just far more expensive. VWestlife did an easily accessible comparison video on them a while back.

[@shazam6274]

Great review. No adjectives found in wine testing reviews. I've been in Audio since the 60s and have marveled at the "headphone" amplifier nonsense in the past 2 decades of debating whether a 0.001% THD figure is good enough. You let the "secret out of the bag" by showing the actual distortion one of the two ends of the audio chain: the source: phono cartridge / microphone and the electro-acoustic transducers: speakers. "Audiophiles" seeking 0.000000% and ignoring the >1%, often > 10% THD, of the input and output transducers are particularly laughable to me. The largest speaker distortions happen below 300 Hz, where 30-50% + is often measured! Most THD measurements fall dramatically above 10 kHz regardless of the quality of the amplifier. That is because most Distortion Analyzer equipment has a low-pass filter at 20 kHz. This prevents measuring any harmonics above 10 kHz. Of course then there is the debate of whether anyone could hear the 3rd harmonic, or higher, distortion of a 10 or 12 kHZ tone anyway. Frequency response for a stereo LP was always limited to ~ 12-13 kHz for almost all LP records ever made. Special exceptions such as Sheffield Lab direct to discs went up to about 16 kHz, but degraded with each playing, so that after 30-40, they were down to the low 'teens of kilohertz (when played with a high quality cartridge like the Shure V15 @ 1-2 grams).

[@TheStuffMade]

Thanks, yeah I usually go with the old order of magnitude rule of thumb, as in if your amplifier performs an order of magnitude (e.g. 20dB) better than your source and your speakers, then it's not going to audibly color the sound. I see many review websites where amplifiers and especially DACs , phono and headphone amplifiers are marked as not recommended if they have a THD+N higher than -100dB/0.001%, that seem very silly to me, I'd like to see a proper scientific blind test where people are actually able to hear the difference between -70dB thdn and less than -100db thdn. Cheers, Jake

[@shazam6274]

@@TheStuffMade In the early 70s, I was in Hollywood California. Hi-Fi was the rage and there were a number of "golden ear" gurus that people followed. I built an A-B-X switching system and placed a curtain between the listener and the audio equipment. I asked the "golden ears" to evaluate and comment on what component (amplifier, cartridge, etc.) was being listened to at each switch setting. They all failed miserably, getting the wrong answer more than simple random chance (i.e. 50%). They complained that they were not familiar enough with the source or it was a different "pressing", so I asked them to bring in their own favorites. Worse results. So they complained that people were in attendance and watching them ("Schrödinger's Cat" argument), so I offered to set up in their home or favorite listening environment. No "takers". About 7 years ago I found some "Audiophiles" on diyaudioprojects massively paralleling OpAmp ICs to make a 25W amp with 0.000001% THD, with some saying that that was an inadequate performance! I was also involved with 4 channel sound and worked with some record companies. There were 3 "schemes" for LPs: SQ, QS and CD-4. SQ was Columbia's, QS was Sansui's and CD-4 was JVC-Panasonic's. Both SQ & QS were based on a matrix which had a maximum Front to Back separation of 6dB. CD-4 could do > 25dB. Due to marketing and being able to use existing pre-amps and cartridges, the SQ & QS became the most popular. CD-4 required a special cartridge and a demodulator pre-amp. It all went away for two reasons: the placement and wiring of two additional rear speakers in a typical home was objectionable to at least one of the occupants and even after the trouble and expense of converting to 4 channels, people couldn't hear the difference due to the poor separation. CD-4, with greater expense and fewer album choices, never had a chance. You correctly state that THD+N (Noise) is the correct description nowadays. This is because of the equipment used to measure it. In the "old days", with analog equipment, there was a very narrow notch filter which was tuned to measure the frequency being tested and would measure the THD without the Noise added. This is significant because even if an amplifier produces minute amounts of THD, the noise floor is added to it, so the limit with low THD amplifiers is the residual Noise Floor.

[@owenlaprath4135]

There are elliptical upgrade styli for the AT3600L. I directly compared the original conical with a "Carbon Fidelity" elliptical, and the elliptical changes the sound quite noticeably. Bass fans will be disappointed, but the original conical hammers at my ears and gives me headaches.The elliptical is fatigue free and does not have that "wow, cool!" effect. It is no party beast, much more mellow, but after a couple of hours of listening, it is much more pleasant, and delivers more detail.

[@gam3dr.]

Thanks for this. I was curious if the elliptical version was much different than the conical stock stylus. Its funny that most of us have them in our collection and people don't realize how loved they are (in our secondary/backup tables) not to mention Thorens, Rega and many higher end tables come with the 3600l - just rebranded.

[@vrassidas_pols]

As I have read, before 4-5 days in a very serious hi fi magazine very soon Audio Technica will has a new 3600 that will be very better the 3600LE .

[@vizkoze]

Well explained. Thanks for the measurements and your insights on thd. A lot of companies are advocating absurdly low figures while on the other hand tube and vinyl sound are well respected among "audiophiles"

[@TheStuffMade]

Thanks, yes it's a jungle out there, I always recommend keeping an open mind, using your own senses and having a listen to what you prefer instead of getting mislead by marketing, but of course it's harder these days where most hifi equipment is sold over the internet and you don't get a chance to try it out first. Cheers, Jake

[@borysandreyev9717]

Thanks! Very deep testing and useful info

[@danieljung2810]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet but the AT3600L follows the Harmon curve much more so than the AT95E, which is likely why people who listen vs going just on price have found the AT3600L a true gem.

[@TheStuffMade]

Hello, the Harman curve is only relevant for headphones because of the way they interact with your ears compared to open sound. It's generally preferred to have your source as flat as possible, but of course there can be many reasons why someone would prefer the AT3600L, perhaps the little boost in high frequencies helps compensate for loss of hearing from getting older, or perhaps it matches better with the speakers, headphones or system being used, or it could just be a preference for a slightly brighter/more airy sound combined with the higher distortion. Cheers, Jake

[@cristian-stefancoconu4578]

Great video! I appreciate the effort.

[@markbryant4641]

Thanks for that! Great vid.

[@skipperbentdk]

The 3600l looks the same as the Rega cartridge. Great detailed video 😃

[@owenlaprath4135]

It IS the same cartridge. There are also direct comparisons of the AT3600 and the Rega Carbon, and they sound the same. Rega just charges 2-1/2 to 3 times the price, because they include a free dose of heavy duty snake oil!

[@NiiOnLood]

​@@owenlaprath4135, they not only sound the same, they even have same parameters measured. Any difference is so marginal they can count as manufacturing tolerances.

[@hallanvaara6106]

Very interesting! Thank you! I've been listening to 50's and 60's records with the 3600L. I hear the groove is somewhat different on those old records and the conical stylus seems to cope well with those. And a greater tracking force doesn't hurt. I made a mono switch to my RIAA to get less crackling on worn mono records. I find the combination of the 3600L with the mono switch to be an economical and a great sounding solution to listening to mono records. Some of the current mono cartridges can get expensive. The 3600L doesn't sound too bad on newer records either. It's no wonder that Rega uses it as a basis for their Rega Carbon cartridge.

[@TheStuffMade]

Thanks, I agree that older records from the 50s and 60s were mastered differently, I believe most of them were recorded in mono and then perhaps some artificial stereo was applied later and the record lathe making the master probably suits a conical cartridge much better than the more extreme modern stylus options. Sounds like a clever solution to use the 3600L as a mono cartridge compared to investing $300 in something like the Ortofon 2M Mono. Cheers, Jake

[@owenlaprath4135]

@@TheStuffMade - records were never cut with conicals, but what is basicallya micro-chisel with sharp edges. The modern stylus options you refer to were developed to closer fit these master cutter-heads! Extreme ellipticals and linear contact types actually fit far better into the groove-wall modulations than any conical, which were and are simply a cost effective way of mass producing affordable styli. The history of advanced stylus shapes actually starts way back in the fifties of the last century!

[@manFromPeterborough]

I use a Shure M78S with SC35 stylus for mono vinyl playback

[@Flaviorrodolfo]

Would realy like a Ortofon test (OM series)

[@sqteamturkey2293]

Which is better?

[@darthbubba866]

It would have been interesting to vary the cartridge loading just to see if you could improve the frequency response. Bis später.

[@TheStuffMade]

I might do a quick little follow up at some point, I was considering including it, but I decided it doesn't belongs as part of the review. Cheers, Jake

[@hallanvaara6106]

@@TheStuffMade Please do that! It would make for an interesting video.

[@darthbubba866]

@@TheStuffMade If nothing else it would increase the perceived value of the cartridge. Not that many people would be able to hear the difference, well, not us older folks. 😄

[@AZG90]

Thank you! For someone who most of the time uses headphones , which would you suggest?

[@owenlaprath4135]

Where exactly is this myth coming from, that a conical diamond causes less wear in the groove? This is a nonsensical thing that is going around like a pesky ghost! A conical has less contact surface than an elliptical, so it acts more like a wrecking ball, than a good elliptical, which reaches down further and conforms better. That also means, with an elliptical, you get more noise from dirt it reaches at the bottom of the groove, so you just need to clean the records!

[@djzoloft]

wow...

[@balleclorin2804]

Fantastic to see objektive data

[@billypennrc2273]

Great video! I appreciate the effort it takes to make these videos and I believe your results and comments . Thank you.

[@keithloucks7167]

Nice Measurements, Science added to subjective.

[@Tunz909]

On the 3600L all you got was the stylus inside the cart? You had to purchase the shell separate? What was the TOTAL cost for the whole combo? Then on the 95E combo what was the total cost . Joe Collins another audiophile who makes videos really likes the 3600L especially at the low cost! thanks for your comparisons!!

[@TheStuffMade]

Thanks, you get a complete cartridge for $15, but it doesn't include the headshell (the metal part the cartridge screws onto that fits into the tonearm). I think I paid around $60 for my AT95E including headshell, but you can get them for around $40-50 without the headshell. There is also now a newer version of the AT95e named AT-WM95e, it's around $65. But the AT3600L is a great little cartridge for just $15. Cheers, Jake

[@Tunz909]

@@TheStuffMade ok thanks mate...I purchased the whole trio stylus/cart/shell AT 3600L for almost 30. Thanks for the info on the new AT 95E!!

[@hambanya6173]

Sony ps lx310BT stylus replacement ? If yes AT3600L can be fit to Sony pslx310bt , any other stylus other than AT3600L?

[@Tunz909]

@@TheStuffMade Jake On my LP120 USB I'm just going to leave the AT 95E in place which I presume comes with this unit. I won't know for sure cause it's still in shrink wrap! My question is now that I have bought the AT 3600L combo/shell/stylus and cart-------will this work well in a vintage Technics SL D202 I'm resurrecting? thanks in advance

[@boymj]

🤘

[@rsanchez7111]

Thanks

[@Apo458]

Pretty useful information. There might not be a monumental difference between different moving magnet cartridges, but holy cow is there a huge gap between a cheapo ceramic cartridge and a cheap MM one (3600L). I used to have an all-in-one record player and it sounded like ass; tinny sound, distorted playback and lots of sibilance. I've upgraded to an LP60X and good lord does it sound better. From what I know, ceramic cartridges can sound great when matching the input impedance (at least 1MΩ), something that manufacturers of those cheap modern record players don't do.

[@owenlaprath4135]

If you like your records, do not play them with ceramic vinyl-plows! They are outright destructive.

[@bengeorge3976]

Is the AT3600 compatible to be straight swapped with the AT95E as an upgrade without having to change the stylus housing?

[@TheStuffMade]

You have to swap the whole cartridge, not just the stylus, but you can keep the headshell. I believe the newer AT-VM95E does offer a number of upgrade styluses, so it's probably a better choice than the old AT95E, although I haven't listened to or measured the new version. Cheers, Jake

[@rafacq]

I use the AT3600L to play old 50’s and 60’s albums and am impressed how good a $20 cartridge can sound. I do have several old cartridges I purchased back in the 80’s. Shure V15 Type II, M95ED, and Empire 3000 mk III. I also have an old ATVM8E but can’t find a replacement stylus for it. I recently ordered the AT-VM95EN. Will it be a better choice over my V15 Type II? Or Empire 3000 mk III?

[@_onAir_]

Ciao molto piacere mi chiamo Piero scrivo dall'Italia. Volevo sapere se quella verde si adatta alla cartuccia della At 3600 ? Grazie

[@TheStuffMade]

Hello, no the styluses are different between AT95 and AT3500. Cheers, Jake