How do MMs and MCs sound different?

This issue might have been presented here before, :sigh:but I want to hear members' opinions. I stick with MMs because of this simple reason: MM's high output gains make it unnecessary to use step-up tranny or booster amp, which could color the sound:yes:Secondly, my motto is pay the least cost for the best performance. MC supporters, please tell me why you go for them and excellent MCs you ever had. Thank you.:scratch2:

There are high-output MC cartridges that don't need an extra transformer.

I used to use denon DL103, which was originally designed for professional use. Yes, I had it directly connected to MM input of the amp. I wonder if the movement is lighter in case of MC as it is a pair of coils? That is to say it's High-compliance movement, which brings high transient character?

My experience is limited to only a few models of lower cost examples of each. That said, my Denon DL-160 or DL-110 seem to open up the soundstage with more width and depth than the MM's I've used, including a Audio Technica AT7V, Ortofon OM20, Shure M95ED and B&O MMC5. THe DL-160 is a HOMC and from what I understand to be true LOMC carts are even more revealing in that respect. I just can't afford to find out, yet.

Of course there's alot to be said for cartridge/tonearm/preamp/speaker synergy.

I can only comment on what I hear in my system.

I mostly keep my amateur opinion to myself, but I was swapping carts today between MM and MC high and low. To me, when I turn up the volume with the MM cart mounted, the volume gets loud--like drive you out of the room loud. With the MC carts, as I turn up the volume, they get more musical, not just louder. This is very true with my LOMC. I hope that makes some sort of sense.

CraigSiR said:

I mostly keep my amateur opinion to myself, but I was swapping carts today between MM and MC high and low. To me, when I turn up the volume with the MM cart mounted, the volume gets loud--like drive you out of the room loud. With the MC carts, as I turn up the volume, they get more musical, not just louder. This is very true with my LOMC. I hope that makes some sort of sense.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the comments, all of you. I regret I let my TT go as KENWOOD KP990 was so heavy and space-consuming. I go for tube amps and analogue discs since they are of much more fun to get particular about. I had AT-33 (LOMC) DL-103 , GRACE (RUBY cantilever MM), Dynavector DV-23R(LOMC), Pickering AC/MP, AT-15a(MM*economical one) and so on. However, it was more than 2 decades ago.:yes:

Suzuki said:

I used to use denon DL103, which was originally designed for professional use. Yes, I had it directly connected to MM input of the amp. I wonder if the movement is lighter in case of MC as it is a pair of coils? That is to say it's High-compliance movement, which brings high transient character?

Click to expand...

I think many here will disagree that MC's as a group are higher compliance, primarily because many MC's require higher tracking force and work best in higher mass arms. I'm not convinced that compliance is the proper measure for transient response performance.

jimreeves said:

I think many here will disagree that MC's as a group are higher compliance, primarily because many MC's require higher tracking force and work best in higher mass arms. I'm not convinced that compliance is the proper measure for transient response performance.

Click to expand...

I see. :yes: Material for cantilever has the effect on transient character, I think.
DL-103 required comparably heavy tracking force, yes, I recall.

The AT 30E ( LOMC ) that I am using came with one of my used turntable.
It uses a AT630 SUT.
It can also be use without the SUT when it is connected to the MC input directly.
One of the good feature of this particular cartridge is that the stylus is user replaceable and upgradeable.
Saving up my meagers funds to do so in the fall.
Looking at the AT 31HE stylus.
Maybe JICO will have a SAS for it by then .

Suzuki said:

This issue might be presented here before, :sigh:but I want to hear members' opinions. I stick with MMs because of this simple reason: MM's high output gains make it unnecessary to use step-up tranny or booster amp, which could color the sound:yes:Secondly, my motto is pay the least cost for the best performance. MC supporters, please tell me why you go for them and excellent MCs you ever had. Thank you.:scratch2:

Click to expand...

Well, I'm definitely not a MC expert, or a cartridge expert, for that matter, but a couple of years ago I acquired my first MC and it has been an eye opening experience for me. Mine is a LO Benz Micro Gold and it came to me used, mounted up in a Linn LP-12 that I bought.

This is the first and only MC cartridge that I own and I like it very much. When I first got it, I put it and the Linn into my main system and used it through the MM phono stage in my McIntosh C34V. For all the (now) obvious reasons, that was not a good match at all! The Benz was very bright and thin sounding and totally unsatisfactory! But even then, the detail it reproduced, compared to the Shure V15 mk.V that I have in my AR turntable was amazing. When I eventually moved it into my second system and started listening to it through the MC phono stage in my Kenwood Basic C2, it really blossomed and began to sing beautifully! It's been there ever since!

I consider the Shure V15 mk.V to be one of the best MM cartridges ever made, but the contrast between the Benz and my Shure is like night and day. But this is more from the aspect of doing different things very well, not from the aspect of which cartridge is "better" or "worse". Compared to the Shure, the Benz is much more detailed with very precise, pinpoint placement of instruments and performers in the soundstage. In my systems, the soundstage itself is a bit narrower and shallower than the Shure's, but much more precisely defined. The Shure has a much fuller and richer midrange and sounds much warmer than the Benz. The Benz does not suffer fools gladly, as I learned the hard way, and when loaded at 47k ohms through the McIntosh phono stage, it was painfully bright. Once I got it moved into my second system and playing through a good MC phono stage, it started to sing beautifully. I am currently running it loaded at 100 ohms and this has made all the difference in the world.

Proper electrical loading of a LOMC is definitely a big factor in how it sounds, but it appears that you can dodge that black hole by simply going with a HOMC instead and that will also permit you to use your existing MM phono stages. So that might be the place for you to start.

A HO Denon 110 or 160 might be a good first choice for not a lot of money. Although I do not have any personal experience with either, I am planning to purchase a 160 to try in my Pioneer PL-71. Given all the postings I've read here concerning these Denon cartridges, I'm expecting good things!

If you are willing to spend quite a bit more money, I can definitely recommend the Benz Micro Gold or its HO twin the Micro Silver and I would suggest you take a look at the Dynavector 10x5. In any case, I would suggest you give a listen to a MC, in your system if possible, and form your own opinion. I have found it to be a completely different (and very good) experience from what I was used to and I suspect you will too!

CraigSiR said:

I mostly keep my amateur opinion to myself, but I was swapping carts today between MM and MC high and low. To me, when I turn up the volume with the MM cart mounted, the volume gets loud--like drive you out of the room loud. With the MC carts, as I turn up the volume, they get more musical, not just louder. This is very true with my LOMC. I hope that makes some sort of sense.

Click to expand...

What you said makes perfect sense. I kind of felt the same way but could not put it into words. PERFECT!

What were you using for a turntable, Suzuki? Can you tell us more of your system, please?

Would some please explain the sonic differences between HO and LO MC's?

thunderroad said:

Well, I'm definitely not a MC expert, or a cartridge expert, for that matter, but a couple of years ago I acquired my first MC and it has been an eye opening experience for me. Mine is a LO Benz Micro Gold and it came to me used, mounted up in a Linn LP-12 that I bought.

This is the first and only MC cartridge that I own and I like it very much. When I first got it, I put it and the Linn into my main system and used it through the MM phono stage in my McIntosh C34V. For all the (now) obvious reasons, that was not a good match at all! The Benz was very bright and thin sounding and totally unsatisfactory! But even then, the detail it reproduced, compared to the Shure V15 mk.V that I have in my AR turntable was amazing. When I eventually moved it into my second system and started listening to it through the MC phono stage in my Kenwood Basic C2, it really blossomed and began to sing beautifully! It's been there ever since!

I consider the Shure V15 mk.V to be one of the best MM cartridges ever made, but the contrast between the Benz and my Shure is like night and day. But this is more from the aspect of doing different things very well, not from the aspect of which cartridge is "better" or "worse". Compared to the Shure, the Benz is much more detailed with very precise, pinpoint placement of instruments and performers in the soundstage. In my systems, the soundstage itself is a bit narrower and shallower than the Shure's, but much more precisely defined. The Shure has a much fuller and richer midrange and sounds much warmer than the Benz. The Benz does not suffer fools gladly, as I learned the hard way, and when loaded at 47k ohms through the McIntosh phono stage, it was painfully bright. Once I got it moved into my second system and playing through a good MC phono stage, it started to sing beautifully. I am currently running it loaded at 100 ohms and this has made all the difference in the world.

Proper electrical loading of a LOMC is definitely a big factor in how it sounds, but it appears that you can dodge that black hole by simply going with a HOMC instead and that will also permit you to use your existing MM phono stages. So that might be the place for you to start.
A HO Denon 110 or 160 might be a good first choice for not a lot of money. Although I do not have any personal experience with either, I am planning to purchase a 160 to try in my Pioneer PL-71. Given all the postings I've read here concerning these Denon cartridges, I'm expecting good things!

If you are willing to spend quite a bit more money, I can definitely recommend the Benz Micro Gold or its HO twin the Micro Silver and I would suggest you take a look at the Dynavector 10x5. In any case, I would suggest you give a listen to a MC, in your system if possible, and form your own opinion. I have found it to be a completely different (and very good) experience from what I was used to and I suspect you will too!

Click to expand...

I agree. The 10x5 is a very good cartridge. You still need to be sure your phonostage has enough gain. :yes: A review is below.

http://www.stereophile.com/phonocartridges/947/

With the 2.5 mV output of the Dynavector 10X5 HO MC, most inputs designed for MM are going to be just about right. 2.5 mV appears as the sensitivity value on some of the vintage integrateds we often discuss here. The 39 to 42 dB gain that is common for the MM inputs on a phono preamp is just about right, too.

The HO MC is going to be in some respects the best of both worlds in that the more-common MM inputs can be used without a SUT but the extra agility and detail of the MC is there. That lighter mass of the moving coils as compared to moving magnets...as alluded to by the OP...is still there...thus accounting for a sonic/tracking advantage in the finer details. That's referring to the mass of the coils and magnets themselves...not necessarily the cartridges.

A limitation, though...they're designed for 47k-Ohm impedance. That's what you usually get with MM phono preamps. For my ears, a HO MC cartridge's extra detail can sound too bright at 47k. If it sounds too bright to you, your best options are probably going to be DIY phono preamps or the highly-adjustable ones, like the Musical Surroundings Phonomena and the PS Audio GCPH.

And then there's the noise already mentioned. If you turn up your system volume to compensate for low gain, you could be turning up the background noise. That's what drove me to sell my Adcom GFP-565...the noise. It had what was otherwise a nice phono stage.

westend said:

What were you using for a turntable, Suzuki? Can you tell us more of your system, please?

Click to expand...

I used to use KENWOOD KP-990 for nearly two decades. This model seems to have been supplied exclusively to domestic market, according to a certain AK member. It was fairly heavy and had a firm construction with mid-mass tone-arm mounted on it. I bought it when I was a univ. student and used to use LUXMAN LX-33(12au7,12ax7,el34) tube pre/main amp for phono stage. Recently ,till I let it go, I used an Audio-Technica-made FET phono stage(PEQ-20) with Pickering AC/?? (9mV) MM cartridge. I also owned a LUXMAN-made non-NFB tube phono stage(12ax7). Transient character was superb with this and DYNAVECTOR ruby cantilever cart(LOMC) combination. This Dynavector is the best cart as far as I know. These are all of my experience about pick-up and phono stage.

What I heard when I went to HOMC Ortofon X3-MC from Grado and other MI/MM types was better more precise detailing and more natural open dynamic response and a much more natural overall sound than the Signet TK7. They sound like a clearer more direct portal to the music than MM/MI carts. I'd expect a good well-chosen LOMC to do better still with even more refinement of performance.
I recently went from a self-built tube phono stage to a Cambridge Audio AZUR 640P than can handle both Lo and Hi output cartridges without transformers needed. It gives up little to the tubes but with far less background noise.

Big Bill said:

Would some please explain the sonic differences between HO and LO MC's?

Click to expand...

HO = high output
LO = low output

In general, the lower the output, the greater accurate detail and musicality is possible. Of course, as with most things this is theoretical and in practice the engineering and execution quality will make a difference, but generally it is true.

Why should MCs sound better than MMs? Because a coil is moving, instead of a magnet. Coils of sufficient size are lighter (less mass) than suitable magnets, so they can be moved more easily. Just as with the difference between large, heavy cones and thin, light electrostatic or ribbon membranes in speakers, greater accuracy is possible when moving the smaller mass.

The smaller and lighter the coil, the faster and more easily it is moved, so the faster it can and does move and the more fine details are captured. The trade-off, of course, is that to make a smaller, lighter coil, one uses fewer turns of wire, which means less strength in the output. Hence, a coil that is more sensitive and captures more detail --and therefore sounds better-- will (usually) have a lower output.

Is the trade-off worth it? Most people who have used both and can afford the (usually more expensive) MCs, think it is.

Pros: MCs will give you ultimately better sound quality, if the system is suitable set up to get the most from the design.

Cons: Cost. Almost always, MCs cost more, and the extra step-up transformer stage costs more. Cables don't have to cost more, but have to be carefully chosen.

I only have one MC cart, the AT-33ML/OCC. It's a fairly rare AT that sells in Japan for even more than the Prestige one does. I haven't heard it through gear that can really do it justice yet, but the little testing I did (Denon step-up into Sansui AU-9500 and Marantz 3650 (MC input) through headphones out) makes me think it is a league above the MMs I have. Just wonderful sound (clarity, soundstage, full-range sound, dynamics - you name it, it's better). Then again, my best MMs are only Shure V15 III and IV, not the best MMs out there. I am looking forward to bringing home the Musical Fidelity MVX-2 preamp, whose built-in MC phono stage should be up to the job of fully extracting the best sound the AT can offer.. On the GT-2000 TT, through that preamp, I'm expecting the best phono sound I've ever enjoyed. I'll come back and post it when I've tried it and given it a good listen, in several weeks.

Arkay said:

Pros: MCs will give you ultimately better sound quality, if the system is suitable set up to get the most from the design.

Cons: Cost. Almost always, MCs cost more, and the extra step-up transformer stage costs more. Cables don't have to cost more, but have to be carefully chosen.

Click to expand...

I agree with these statements. I used several MM carts on my Thorens TD-126 mk2 (Shure V15 type 3, Ortofon ME-20E and similar) until I got to hear my first LOMC cart, a Yamaha MC-7 (an entry level LOMC cart). The differences are so evident in favor of the LOMC that I would never use again a MM cart. I listen mainly to classical music (so, acoustic instruments, no amplification involved by the musicians), and perhaps that counts: no distortion (sound of the instruments remarkably close to the original), wider soundstage, superb highs (in human voices or violins or oboes, for example). I am now in the search of better a LOMC for my TT, like a Micro Benz Ace, of course LOMC. Perhaps these experiences are not so evident with other type of music, like rock or pop.