Audio Technica AT150MLX Review

[Robert]

Way back when Vinyl was the primary source of any decent hi-fi system most of the leading cartridge manufacturers had a flagship MM cartridge which was the embodiment of their best technology. Nagaoka, Ortofon, Glanz, Grace, ADC, Technics, AT, AKG – the list runs to dozens of manufacturers. Sadly, few remain and of those that still survive few produce anything of note for those users who don’t want a moving coil yet require a high quality cartridge.

However, one company does still produce a moving magnet cartridge that is a technological tour de force and offers a performance to compete with mid priced coils.
Audio Technica are the company and the cartridge is the AT150MLX. Based on the cheaper (excellent) 440 the 150 has a number of advantages to boost it’s performance.
Firstly, it has a tough alloy body to allow a tight bond with the headshell and the large wide footprint stylus assembly makes a tight and secure fit to the body. The bond is so tight that I had trouble separating them when mounting the cartridge. The cantilever is a thin wall beryllium tube which has been gold plated to damp any resonances and the all important stylus profile is of the Micro Line variety to ensure superb high frequency tracking and extended diamond life. Add ATs OCC coil windings and super light dual magnets and you should have all the ingredients for a winning cartridge.

Audio Technica, like may others over the years have often made the mistake of producing good but over compliant cartridges which were unsuitable for use in all but the lightest arms. Only arms such as the SME 3 and old Mission 774 could work properly with such high compliance models. I’m pleased to report that the 150 is able to work in real world modern arms such as the Rega and SME designs and I’d estimate it’s compliance somewhere in the mid 20s. This is still too high for the Ittok, Zeta and other massy arms IMO and a little fluid damping also seems to help the cartridge.

Describing the sound of the 150MLX is difficult because it is an incredibly neutral device. In fact it sounds a little smooth and slightly laid back straight from the box – yes that’s right – this is the first AT I’ve head that is not lean and crisp. Tracking is amazing with the 150 sailing through torture tracks and retaining it’s composure at all times. I have the first album by ‘Everything but the Girl’ which gets played often as I love the lyrics on this album, but the production is way OTT with lashings of reverb, blaring brass and fizzing sibilants. The cut of the album is also very high yet the AT150 produced it all without fuss and managed to retrieve plenty of fine detail which is normally buried. It also managed to sound remarkably un-congested and this I feel is the AT’s greatest strength. It does not have the fantastic speed of a Dynavector DV17 or the power and authority of a Koetsu, nor is there quite the richness of a good Denon, but the AT has the remarkable ability to let you hear all the strands of a performance without any sense of confusion or the felling that different parts of the mix are modulating each other. I was initially a little disappointed that the bass lacked power and punch but what you get is extremely tuneful and nimble.

The other notable aspect of performance is the sweetness and clarity of the cartridge. Vocals sound fresh and clean irrespective of recording level and tracks on the inner grooves sound just as clean and distortion free as those on the outer edge which shows the superb quality of the ML tip.

If you like the grip and hard edged dynamic ‘poke’ of some MC designs (inc ATs own OC9) you may find the 150MLX a little soft at first but remember that you can tune the cartridge. Like many MMs the top end of the 150 is affected by the capacitance of the cables and phono input. My SME 4 is wired with low capacitance VDH cable which into the MF pre amp gives about 180pf. This load is recommended by AT and gives a very flat response with a very gently roll off above 15Khz. Raising capacitance will peak up the top end to give a crisper sound, so the user has the option to experiment. As I’ve said, tracking is superb even at 1gm but you can safely go up to the 1.75gm max and doing so progressively adds body and weight to the sound – its your choice.

I have a sneaky feeling that this cartridge will really sparkle in the low mass Mission 774 on my LP12. I’ve had the cartridge for 7 days now and its still at the run-in stage. In a week or so I’ll transplant it into the Mission/Linn and report my findings.

The good news is that AT can offer all this performance for £160.
The bad news is that this cartridge is only available on the Japanese market as it was withdrawn from Europe and the US some years ago. My 150 arrived direct form Japan in 5 days via Audiocubes II. Buying blind is always a risk but frankly unless you are spending thousands on a cartridge few dealers will arrange a comparative cartridge dem, so I’ll stick my neck out and recommend that if you are in the market for a sub £500 cartridge you should try the 150MLX.

…..and here she is.

Rob.

[Linnik]

Nice to hear about this cart Robert.

What I was left missing were comparative words against Linn carts. Cause if we are talkin about carts they are IMHO to which we should compare.

In the MM world, isn't Adikt by music/money the best one???
Tell me if you know. I do not but I would assume.

Oz

[Robert]

Hi Craig,

Hoarding away copies of Flat Response, Review and Practical is the least of my worries as I did a nice deal with a chap last week for his entire collection of Hi-Fi Answers - the full set. Lord knows where I'm going to put them and the post office workers give me strange looks as it is so I shudder to think what will happen when the poor sod arrives on my doorstep with the box!
It will be good to read all those crazy JMH ramblings again and to re aquaint myself with those old Peter Turner, Adrian Orlowski and Paul Benson articles.

Yes, AT have certainly depended on the same basic dual magnet system for donkeys years. Must be a good basic dsign. The 150 would certainly suit tube pre amp users which often lack a MC input.

Oz, you asked about comparisons with the Linn cartridges. Of course the Linn Basik, K5,K9 and K18 were all AT designs tweaked by Linn. I found the K9 a decent cartridge with plenty of pace if a little cold and lacking colour. The K18 I rather liked and it was good enough to give low end MCs a run. I'd still say that the 150MLX is better. The metal body and tight stylus fit give most of the structural advantages of the K18 but the cantilever and tip on the AT are far superior - and it shows.
Talking of structural integrity brings me onto the thorny subject of how far should you tighten the cartridge bolts. The answer, I think, depends on the material in question. I believe that you can hear some benefit when applying additional presure on a cartridge with a plastic body as it seems to compress the material giving a less compliant joint. Naturally there are limits - don't go mad and break the thing. With a metal cartridge body like that used on the AT I can see (and hear) no advantage in going 'Linn tight' with the allen key. The metal to metal joint simply needs enough force to give a secure fit. I used the supplied alloy screws to mount the 150 into the SME 4 without problem.

As for the Linn Adikt, I have never heard one but I believe it is built by Goldring and based on their respected 1000 series which should ensure good if not class leading results.

Rob.

[Linnik]

Thanks for your answer Rob,

Actually, the Adikt would be the most interesting to compare with as it is not AT made. And it is a new design. But also to some Linn MC's like Klyde or Karma would be a nice comparison for to create perspective.

Your AT looks good. Happily, from down under, it looks quite much the old Shure top models by the shape. Quite much so really.

No doubt the V shaped magnets and tight fit of the stylus assembly have been a lucky and skillful design of AT's.

Oz

[Robert]

Oz, my main gripe with Linn MCs has been the tip used.
That Vital diamond tip used by Linn over the years simply isn't very vital at all - its a dog and spoils otherwise great cartridges.

Comparing the 150 to a Linn MC is difficult. All the Linn models will win out on dynamics, punch and authority but the AT will lick them all on refinement, tracking and low distortion.

Remember also that the AT costs far less than any Linn MC and is suitable for different arms than the low compliance Linns.
If you want an AT cartridge that can take on Linn moving coils and win, look to the OC9ML.

Rob.

[Conster]

Hey Robert
I recently purchased a dynavector 10X5 for my lp12 ittok lingo exposure14/9 4dr.
I am finding the output on the mm stage lackluster but overly dynamic on the mc stage.
I had originally planned to buy an oc9 but chose the dynavector based on favourable reviews. I think it's a good cartridge however it may not be suited to my pre amp.
I noticed the at150mx has a more generous output and better impedance match for my preamp.
But I am curious of the two 0c9 vs 150mx which do you think might work better in my rig.
Much appreciated

[Robert]

Hi,

The two cartridges are quite different.

The 150MLX tracks like a bloodhound and, correctly loaded, sounds very sweet and pure. It has very low needletalk - that horrid tsz-tsz-tsz that lots of cartridges throw out so controls energy well. The midband is exceptional and it sounds at its best on light jazz, classical and small scale intimate stuff where it's delicacy shines through.

The OC9ML sounds bolder and sharper. Tighter bass with more grip but a little unrelenting at the top compared to the 150. Toms, snares rim shots - that sort of stuff, sound more impressive than the 150.

Both have a lovely ML tip and give low tracing distortion.
The 150 prefers a lower mass arm - I'd not use it in anything above 12g effective mass and it also likes some damping. The OC9 if fine in heavier arms like the Ittok.

One word of caution though. The 150 needs a low capacitance load of <200pf and sounds 'right' at 150pf. That can be hard to achieve in practice as most arm cables will provide that before you add the capacitance of the amp. 300-400pf rolls off the extreme top end and peeks up the treble giving a hard, glassy sound. One solution is to remove the parallel capacitors found on most MM stages and rely solely on the arm cable.

Hope that helps, but ask away if you have more questions

[Conster]

sounds like the oc9 will be the one

[bighead1707]

Hello Robert,

What's your opinion if I want to move from DL110 to AT? MY TT is Rega Planar3 + RB300.

Morris

[keithshilly]

Robert, et al

Have replaced my ageing "Linn K18" with a 150MLX, using an alignment gauge etc and set at 1.5 gm. (Deck = "Ariston RD80SL mk2" + "Alphason H100S").

Whilst I didn't expect it to track HFS's very demanding track, 300Hz lateral +18dB, I am surprised that the cartridge evidently is unhappy with the lesser +14dB track, plus the 3 x (+15dB) tracks that are placed on outside, mid-way + inside of side 2. The mis-tracking sounds central generally, implying that bias correction is acceptable.

'Real' records sound less bright, with more subtle detail, bass being less prominent. Tracking them seems ok, so far.

Only last week interestingly, an AT110 cartridge on a "Dual" t/t passed all the tests happily.

Any comments please folks...


keep the phase
keith

[jcarr]

I'd like to point out that the Arkiv, Arkiv B and Akiva have all never used Vital Diamond types (which incidentally refers to the shape of the diamond block, not the profile). The Akiva in particular uses a stylus shape which IME is superior to the ML tip.

regards, jonathan carr

[Robert]

The 150ML is a medium/high compliance cartridge and should clear that test disc without problem.

Two things to check:

A- The cartridge may simply be replaying damaged grooves caused by older cartridges that have damaged them. The fact that the cartridge seems to be tracking music without problem indicates that this may be the problem.

B- Have you set the tracking force using a reliable method, preferably something like a Shure or Ortofon guage?

Tip geometry has no effect on tracking at the frequencies used on test discs which are mid-band tones.

[P]

Missed this first time around

Hell

That was one funky looking cart there Rob - it just "looks" like it's gonna sound good (in an Ekos though - the Ittok is a pile of crap IMHO)

Boron I know but the OC9 ML2 trounces a Rohmann big time - not good news for the "high end" manufacturers maybe but hey it's about revealing music not profit margins or overheads right?

[Robert]

Originally Posted by P

Missed this first time around

Hell

That was one funky looking cart there Rob - it just "looks" like it's gonna sound good (in an Ekos though - the Ittok is a pile of crap IMHO)

Boron I know but the OC9 ML2 trounces a Rohmann big time - not good news for the "high end" manufacturers maybe but hey it's about revealing music not profit margins or overheads right?

It is certainly one of the finest MMs I've ever heard. Mine gets used when I take the Mission 774 arm from a spin as the two are made for each other.
Use in the Ittok or Ekos may be a problem as the arm mass is a little too high. I agree with you that the Ekos is a very fine arm (trounces the Aro IMO) but I think that you are being a little unkind to the Ittok which is still a fine arm even today if you have sample with good bearings.

[P]

A little unkind maybe Rob.

I've owned an Ittok and although it sounded OKish and hugged the groove OK the clattering of those exposed screws in the arm tube over the cueing arm really used to get to me. What an ergonomic disaster.

The Ekos is a far superior arm in every way and everyone should exchange their Ittok and get a new Ekos - Today!
:-)

BTW - anyone interested in a new AT OC9 MLll should speak to CoolGales- Best price in the UK and very nice people to deal with.