You are here

Log in or register to post comments
slovell1
slovell1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 24 2009 - 10:21pm
audio technica at33ml/occ

is anyone on this forum familiar with this cartridge? i bought one off ebay from a guy in south korea on the cheap. it sounds really nice, good soundstage, good inner detail, tight bass. just can't find much on the net about it.
best regards, sam

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: audio technica at33ml/occ

It's a great low output MC cart and I've always liked the sound of A-T cartridges. I had one of the originals and it served me well enough that I'd snap up another if the opportunity presented itself.

Daverz
Daverz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 1 month ago
Joined: Jul 6 2009 - 10:39pm
Re: audio technica at33ml/occ

I got an AT33PTG from audiocubes. Fabulous cartridge. Smooth and neutral with a liquid midrange; very quiet in the groove; excellent soundstage; excellent tracker. I prefer it to the Benz L2 and the Dynavector 20xl. I'm not familiar with the AT33 variant you mention, though.

The only downside is that the compliance is not ideal for medium mass arms like my SME 309 (9.5g effective mass), which makes it more sensitive to footfalls.

slovell1
slovell1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 24 2009 - 10:21pm
Re: audio technica at33ml/occ

Thanks for the reply,
I've been seriously considering buying an AT33PTG lately. The AT33 that I have now is very old. I bought it on the cheap (real cheap) on the BAY. The suspension is just about gone on it but it did give me taste of a better LOMC. I've read many good reviews on the PTG. I'm also considering the Denons, DL-301mkll & the 103R, but I'm leaning toward the PTG more and more.
Thanks, Sam

KBK
KBK's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 30 2007 - 12:30pm
Re: audio technica at33ml/occ

M advice is to stick to the AT33 series. I just love the damn things to death. I've got about 15 blown and fried low output A-T MC cartridges in my box of used LOMC's.

But, I prefer a sound that is low on harmonic spuriae that can be confused with 'body' or 'distortion', or as some might call it 'bloom'. I want the real actual bloom in the sound not something delivered by cloaking the moving and resonant bits in a body that adds to the sound.

I can say such things as I work in the mechanical noise control end of things, and every A-T cart or any cart at all that I've owned, I've modded each and every for lowered mechanical noise (false colouration) characteristics.

My point being that if I damp the body of a given A-T cartridge, the change is not as notable as it can be in other cartridges which might be loosing actual detail and signal that is being hidden and lost/swamped in the false harmonic bloom.

I've always used transformers as the problems with noise that is electronically derived at these very meager signal levels, to me-this makes the use of a transformer the obvious choice. But the transformer must mate will with the given cartridge, impedance wise. Which is why I use super low output cartridges with very low impedance, as in under 12 ohms internal impedance. My main MC transformer is designed around a 10-12 ohm impedance on it's input for optimal loading.

These issues change as you get into the top tier of MC cartridges, ie the multi $$ kilobuck range. All bets are off then, and each MC needs be interviewed on it's own.

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading