How many have switched from MM carts to LOMC?

[Pio1980]

For me, not practical for daily use. Not rugged enough nor flexible enough. Special purposes, yes.

What do you use? How and when?

 

[Pio1980]

My best personal vinyl playback has been thru an AT OC9-II riding an ET-2 pneumatic bearing linear tracking arm on a VPI HW19-MkIII thru an AK project AD797 phono stage. For me, an end game "Sunday best" player.
My everyday "less-than" player is a Shure M91 with EVG stylus riding a Pioneer PL-L1000 TT into an ESP PO-6 pre.

 

[twiiii]

Way back in the 60's I had an Empire 88 I believe. From there I changed to a Shure M-44-7. What I was looking for was all the help I could find in the bass region. Then I switched to a Ortofon SPU/GT. Then the SPE GT. Both with the heavy transformers mounted to the cartridge. By the time CD's had come along, I think I was using SL-20 MKII with external transformers. Some where in the scheme of things a MC30 came along. Then I swore off LP's and gave over 1000 of them away. I kept my Direct to disc LP's from Sheffield, etc and my Master Recordings. I tried a V-15 V and wasn't happy so went with 981HZ Stanton. Finally after trashing my last back-up staylus Frank at Audio Classics sent me a Dynavector 10X4 and I'm back to over 500 LP's but have upgraded to a 20 X 2 MK II. If I get a Prime with the magnetic drive next year. I want to try an XX-2. So how do I answer the pole. I like MC, but enjoy HO and LO.

 

[JP]

I find the M97xE a very natural-sounding transducer, with nothing hyped or exaggerated

Similar reason I went to MM; I'm not a fan of the rising response of MCs. These days I prefer accurate. There's not much to choose from for modern MMs though I'm not extremely picky for daily drivers. It'll be a sad day when I run out of styli for the two reference cartridges I use for critical listening and transfers.

 

[VfB Stefan]

I have a PL-518 and I've been unsure about whether any MC would work well on this TT...I've always had MM carts and don't know enough about MC's on this system.

 

[Daunia 70]

Yep,can't beat a LOMC cart... I'm currently using a Ortofon Rohmann with a Trio/Kenwood L-07D DD. My pre-amps are either a Trio L-08C or Sony TA-E88B.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

What do you use? How and when?

I need at minimum, .7 mil conical, 1 mil conical, 2.7 mil conical, .3 x .7 elliptical, and a line contact/StereoHedron/Shibata type. I deal with everything from early 1930's transcriptions and shellac, to modern day audiophile super discs, and all points in between.

 

[Mister Pig]

The last MM cartridge I owned was a Goldring 1042. I ahve also owned the Grado wood body Reference and Master, first generation series I believe. None of them did anything magical for me, I thought they sounded nice but rather meh. The sound was not immediate, dynamic contrasts at the micro level were lost, and the subtle layering to the music was not as easily discerned. I prefer my LOMC cartridges.

My LOMC reference cartridge is a ZYX 4D. I also own a Transfiguration Spirit III that I absolutely love. I have a Shelter 501 MK II that I need to hear, it just came back from the retipper. for my economical cartridges I have an Audio Technica OC 9 III and 33EV. I am really impressed with the OC 9 III on the Marc Morin hotrodded AR XA I have. Oh and the interesting experiment is a Denon 103M with a line contact stylus, but it needs a step up transformer to come to life. The .13 mV output is a tough task for almost any active phono stage to run.

As a final thought. I did hear some digital rips that a person made who used an AR XA with a Shure V15 IV cartridge. And they sounded very nice, and showed a lot of promise. Wish I could spend some time with that particular combo, it might be one I like.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[Funky54]

Mr

The last MM cartridge I owned was a Goldring 1042. I ahve also owned the Grado wood body Reference and Master, first generation series I believe. None of them did anything magical for me, I thought they sounded nice but rather meh. The sound was not immediate, dynamic contrasts at the micro level were lost, and the subtle layering to the music was not as easily discerned. I prefer my LOMC cartridges.

My LOMC reference cartridge is a ZYX 4D. I also own a Transfiguration Spirit III that I absolutely love. I have a Shelter 501 MK II that I need to hear, it just came back from the retipper. for my economical cartridges I have an Audio Technica OC 9 III and 33EV. I am really impressed with the OC 9 III on the Marc Morin hotrodded AR XA I have. Oh and the interesting experiment is a Denon 103M with a line contact stylus, but it needs a step up transformer to come to life. The .13 mV output is a tough task for almost any active phono stage to run.

As a final thought. I did hear some digital rips that a person made who used an AR XA with a Shure V15 IV cartridge. And they sounded very nice, and showed a lot of promise. Wish I could spend some time with that particular combo, it might be one I like.

Regards
Mister Pig

Mr. Pig would you be so kind to share how in your opinion the OC9 MLII differed or compares with the AT-33?

I am also wondering what your opinion is of mounting either on my mid mass unipivot Nima arm?

Any one is welcome to chime in, I just know Mr Pig is familiar with where I'm coming from since I have a Goldring 1042 MM now.

 

[rcspkramp]

I switched to LOMC around 1975 and never went back to MM. That being said, I kind of like the Soundsmith MI offerings.

 

[4-2-7]

I voted "Both are good, it doesn't matter."

I'm just not the kind of person who can say that in all cases and under all conditions one type is better than the other. Cartridges and turntables and associated gear are all tools in my music toolbox. If you open my automobile toolbox, you will find more than one expensive wrench. In my wood working toolbox, you will find more than an expensive saw. This business of playing records will never lend itself to a one-size-fits-all solution for me--maybe for others, but not me.

It would be just as difficult and pointless to claim superiority of moving magnet (as if they can all be lumped together--as if I can claim expertise on the matter after having heard a few) as it would be to claim superiority of moving coil (as if they all can be lumped together--as if I can claim expertise on the matter after having heard a few).

Seems like there could be people here who, if they owned a stereo store would stock one turntable, one arm, one preamp, one amp, and one type of speakers and when you walked in to buy a stereo, you would buy this system because this person decided this was the best and it's the best for everyone.

Perhaps there are others who would agree with that; but I don't.

I have a number of MC's of all shapes and sizes, P Mounts, HOMC, LOMC, Ortofon, Denon, Audio-Technica: they are fun to collect and fun to listen to.

I run the LOMC's through an SUT into a rather modest MM preamp and they sound fantastic.

But I started with moving magnet, then to moving iron, induced magnet, and a few other theoretical descriptions of essentially the same idea (but with very different results in the practical world). Do these others count as MM? There is no magnet that moves in Moving Iron designs. For the sake of argument, lets just say, yes: Anything that isn't MC is MM.

I knew this poll would eventually start to turn into a battle of MM vs. MC, and the battle lines are just too broad.

For me, I'm going to have to agree that if there's one thing I notice above all among the probably hundred or so carts I have is that what seems to matter more is cantilever, cart/arm matching, gear matching and perhaps other variables like thoughtful consideration of exactly what one is trying to achieve and what medium one is considering such that different tools designed with different design priorities can address this approach differently and flexibly as a matter of an overall strategy.

Is there only one type of record? Is there only one amp topology? Is there only one type of listening space or listening purpose?

Should we start drawing battle lines over what's the best type of diamond tip? Conical? Elliptical? Parabolic?

And we can continue to split hairs. What kind of elliptical? Exactly which parabolic?

And what about cantilever?

For me, the best answer would be: "It depends." But that wasn't offered. Perhaps "Both are good, and it does matter," would have been a better option.



That is a shame. But this presents an opportunity for me. Send them to me. I'll be glad to take them off your hands. I'm not kidding. Send me a PM and I will give you my mailing address.

I was absolutely delighted recently when a moving magnet cartridge that I never would have tried on my own showed up on my doorstep recently and so I tried it. I've heard expensive moving coils, capable of competing with the best and certainly well-received by the critics, properly set up, in my own system in the comfort of my own home, with very familiar records. They are not flawless. Far from it. This moving magnet I received is flawed, too, but it sounds so nice anyway. I mean--wow.

Honestly, my very favorite cartridge right now is the Pickering XLZ-7500S, and I don't even have and have never heard the original OEM stylus, but I do have a Stanton D98-IIS, which supposedly is the equivalent. Why is it may favorite? Well, if I said it's because it sounds very much like my reputedly best LOMC, then you could use that as evidence that MC is clearly the winner. But it doesn't sound like other MC's I have. In fact, it doesn't sound like most of them. And my reputedly best LOMC, the AT, suffers next to it for some reasons that have been pointed out with that cartridge--the stylus, sharp, wonderful, detailed, excellent as it is, is not forgiving of any record that is not absolutely perfect and pristine. It is an extremely critical cartridge.

If I said that it's my favorite because it behaves like MM's in that I have a virtual world of styli that I can change in and out depending on what I'm playing, then you could take that as evidence that MM or MI or some other theory is clearly the winner. As wonderful as this cartridge sounds, it does sound different in many ways than "typical" MM, so does it even represent MM? The D98-IIS stylus is also the stylus used in the 981-HZS, a more typical MM cartridge in design. To my ears, the XLZ and the HZS sound worlds apart using the very same stylus. But neither sounds bad and neither wins. They tie for first place in the Miss America pageant. The HZS is an MM. I love it. Do I love it more than my LOMC's? Yes, actually, for a number of reasons including how it sounds--but there's no point in comparing sound because they both sound excellent.

The 981-HZS, the Pickering XLZ-7500S, Denon DL-103 and the AT OC9ML/II sound different from each other, but the difference in sound between the AT OC9ML/II and the Stanton or the Pickering (depending on which stylus) is far less than the difference in sound between the AT and the Denon. So what does that mean? And which is better?

I was also blown away by this humble Shure M91E recently and myself and another AKer both concluded independently that we think that it sounds better than the HOMC DL-110.

The common response to that is, "Well, we're talking about carts that cost at least $1,000 and since you can't really get an MM that costs more than $1,000, then MC's win, obviously."

That may be so. I can't respond to that other than to say, well, maybe for a few select people who will spend $1,000 or more on a cartridge, MC is not a better choice--it's the only choice. But maybe it takes $1,000 to get an MC to really outshine the best MM's that can do all that for less. I don't know. I do know that SoundSmith would probably have a problem with that assessment, and even Grado who offer multithousand dollar Moving Irons (with all the versatility-killing compromises of MC).

There are some things that come out of all these comparisons: I do think, based on what I've heard in my own cartridges, that low impedance is what is mostly responsible for MC sound than anything else. When you make a low impedance MM and hook it up to a SUT, it sounds like an MC through a SUT.

But there are plenty of MM's that get around that issue and remain high impedance--maybe not as well as LOMC does because LOMC and LOMM are both inherently unencumbered.

But for me, the real dividing line is the impedance issue and I do agree that HOMC's sound more like HOMM's and LOMC's sound more like, well, the one LOMM that I own. And once you have that ability to compare under your belt, you can actually make your LOMM sound like a DL-103 by putting in a certain stylus. And you can make it sound like an AT OC9ML/II by installing a different stylus. And you can make it sound like something else all together by putting in a third stylus. But what you can't do is make it sound like a HOMM by changing the stylus and you can't make it sound like HOMC, either. And the ability to change around styli with the LOMM makes it pretty clear to me that most of the difference in what I hear LOMC to LOMC resides in the cantilever and the tip, and my LOMC collection continues to grow.

So, in my lab, there lies the difference. And it's all fascinating and fun and I love my MM's too because they sound awesome as well! And if you want to go down another road, compare two-coil MM's to four-coil MM's, and MM to MI, and induced magnet to other designs because they all offer subtle differences in how they handle music and the business of traveling the groove.

Preamps also have a lot to say in how things sound, and also cables and more importantly, cable length (and theoretically, it's really capacitance). I recently hooked up a Pickering XSV/3000 using the shortest length RCA's I could. I even used a very cheap pre, not expecting a lot. If you can make a good quality RCA cable yourself, cut to length and solder the terminals so that there is no extra--six-inch lengths if you can do it, I think most people would be amazed at what happens to a HOMM--kind of amazing, really. It opens right up on the top end. Maybe not to the extent of an LOMC, but certainly equal or even better than the HOMC's I've got. Put that HOMC in that circuit, though, and not much changes.

Based on my foolings around, I firmly believe people who have made claims to make MM sound as transparent as MC by paying strict attention to cables/interconnects and especially capacitance load and perhaps preamp loading/"cartridge" loading.

I still haven't gotten to cartridge loading, but it seems to me that the real fly in the ointment with MM is the capacitance and this seems to be tamable as well, but it takes a lot more knowledge to get it right than it takes to plug in an LOMC (or LOMM) and get that response.

Just a tip from me, when I see your post is this long I just blow over it, if, If I want to read a novel I will get a good book.
I did stop when you quoted me though so send me a PM

 

[Mister Pig]

Mr

Mr. Pig would you be so kind to share how in your opinion the OC9 MLII differed or compares with the AT-33?

I am also wondering what your opinion is of mounting either on my mid mass unipivot Nima arm?

Any one is welcome to chime in, I just know Mr Pig is familiar with where I'm coming from since I have a Goldring 1042 MM now.

The OC 9 I have is the III and not the II. It has beena good long time since I listened to a II, but I suspect in many ways its similar to the III.

The OC9 III and the 33EV are very different cartridges in terms of how they present music. The 33EV is very dynamic and immediate, with awesome swings in energy. It also images incredibly well for its price point. Wht it does lack is a bit of refinement and that micro detail in the upper registers that the best MC cartridges have.

The OC9 III is more refined and subtle. It is a warmer sound than the 33EV, and has nice dynamic swing, but not on the scale of the 33EV. It images well, and has nice layering, and shows more detail in the top end than the 33EV. But it costs more too. What is really cool about the OC9 III is its bass response. It is remarkable in this area, very authoritative and extended.

One option is to find the 33 PTG II. It has a cantilever and diamond like the OC9 III, but it appears to have the generator assembly more in line with the 33EV. They can only be had greay market for us in the US, so you gotta go to Ebay for one. No warranty by Audio Technica USA though.

I would consider the 33EV to be something along the lines of a super 1042. They are more similar than different, but the improvements are substantial. Even though the 1042 has a more advanced diamond on it.

Hope this helps.

Regards
Mister Pig

 

[lini]

I've heard good and not so good MMs, MIs and MCs - so to me it depends on the particular models (and even exemplars) in combination with the circumstances/system environment.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

 

[kaplang]

And the quest for perfection continues.

 

[bobins08]

I have several MM' s that I enjoy a lot especially Shure V15-III. I also like the DL 110, especially great at its old pricing.

Now running DL 301 mk II and it is fantastic, a true step forward from my MMs. I like it better with a SUTso far.

To complicate things I like my Grado GF1+ with MCZ stylus the best of all. So let's not forget moving iron.

Cheers, Bob

Ok, I'm replying to myself since I cannot edit my post.

Since I wrote this response I have learned how to optimize the transformers in my SUT. I can now say the DL 301, with the SUT connected to my favorite MM stage does indeed best my Grado w/ MCZ stylus.

It took a lot of tweaking to get the 301 to produce midrange on par with the Grado/ MCZ but I did it. Please note I have not compared them on the same table yet.

I voted that I like them all, I prefer to focus on how they sound, rather than the method they use to create the sound. I'm new to low output moving coil and I just learned it can take more time and money to get them optimized.

Cheers, Bob

 

[Picklgreen]

I have 3 tables and I use both. An Ortofon 2M Black, Ortofon 2M Mono SE (both MM) and a Goldring Erioca Lx (LOMC). The MC definitely sounds better! All the normal superlatives are true. Bigger soundstage, more detail, etc etc etc. Of course the 2M Black is no slouch though. It is arguably the best MM cartridge available and costs more than some MC cartridges! In fact it is better than Ortofons enitre entry level MC series (Quintet series). I do plan to replace it with an Ortofon Cadenza Blue however. I need to buy a setup transformer first though.

 

[Wildcat]

I had such a bad experience with an ortofon 2M Black that I decided to move up to a Dynavector 17D3. I came from a Shure V15VMR that tracked anything I threw at i it (I wore the poor thing completely out!), and needed something competent. I never liked the bright/forward Audio Technica sound, so that was out, although I am itching to hear that AT33PTG/II MC cart, as those are in a different league. I've currently stepped up to a Dynavector XX2, due to a warranty issue I had with the 17D3. (Shows you how some companies care about their customers and bend over backwards to satisfy, where ortofon was basically "eff you" on my many 2M Black issues.) I think I prefer the 17D3 slightly over the XX2, but I'm not complaining. I'm temporarily using a Musical Fidelity AC-1 pre-preamp for the MC cart, but will probably go the SUT route, provided my next preamp doesn't have its own MC input.

For my primary turntable, no, I wouldn't go back. I'm hearing so much more deeply into the music now that I don't think I could lose that. It's more involving than anything I've heard on a MM cart--soundstage, midrange clarity, inner detail, highs that are clean and not grating--I'm lovin' it all right now. Yet for other TTs, a MM make so much more sense. I'm considering a Grado with an 8MZ stylus upgrade for my spare TT, as I have always liked the Grado sound (and no, I've never had one hum). And if through some stroke of incredible luck Shure would introduce a V15 Type VI, I would likely be lured into getting one. As if...

 

[marcmorin]

Ok, I'm replying to myself since I cannot edit my post.

Since I wrote this response I have learned how to optimize the transformers in my SUT. I can now say the DL 301, with the SUT connected to my favorite MM stage does indeed best my Grado w/ MCZ stylus.

It took a lot of tweaking to get the 301 to produce midrange on par with the Grado/ MCZ but I did it. Please note I have not compared them on the same table yet.

I voted that I like them all, I prefer to focus on how they sound, rather than the method they use to create the sound. I'm new to low output moving coil and I just learned it can take more time and money to get them optimized.

Cheers, Bob

New body on its way to evaluate the MCZ stylus in....please revisit this

 

[bobins08]

New body on its way to evaluate the MCZ stylus in....please revisit this

Absolutely will revisit this with the MCZ stylus in a higher end cartridge body.

The sweet sounds of the Grado, espesially the lush mids and the overall tonality, drove me to "fix" my MC set up.

So for purposes of this thread my contributiuon is:

1. a properly matched SUT can really make the DL 301 really sing!
2. I like MM, MC AND MI !

 

[scuba]

The Denon DL 103 has replaced my Ortophon OM40 as my go to cartridge. I run it through an Hagerman Piccolo 2 and into a Hagerman Cornet 3. Louder, clearer and with a deeper sound than any MM cartridge I have used