Low output MC vs. High output MC

[KentTeffeteller]

Well depending on the match-up


And here your contradicting with the below statement. I would say everyone should have the best cartridge, table and arm on the market. However most people with a restricted budget and say they want to upgrade from something like a SL-1200 and run of the mill MM cart, to a new set-up $1000 table that has a run of the mill MM cart. They would be far better off putting their money into a far better MC cart and stage utilizing the same table. You will get a far bigger bang in SQ for the money instead of going sideways for the dollars spent.



A better cart will sound better on a better arm and table, but this is if there is no budget, personally I really don't need to worry about it anymore. However I'v done it many times over and know if money got tight I could sell my tables and arms as long as I keep my cartridges I'll be all good on a $500 table without a huge loss of SQ.

Not everybody can handle delicate MC options, also they are not appropriate choices for all needs. And the SL-1200 suits many practical needs for those who require different cartridge options. I play everything from 1930's 78 RPM discs to modern day LP audiophile superdiscs and in between. No one cartridge does this all. And some people need more rugged designs than a delicate MC. Be mindful of this. Practical needs must be considered too. Some people ultimate performance trumps all. But some need practicality and have needs that the less flexible approach does not meet. I like better MM, MI, and MC cartridges (but find I use the MC only on special occasions with a selected few records). Your experiences and mileage as always may vary. I own more than one turntable and arm, as I need options. Tonearms without standard headshell options for me are unsuited for anything but specialist use, or I'd need 3 tonearms always available.

 

[4-2-7]

Not everybody can handle delicate MC options, also they are not appropriate choices for all needs. And the SL-1200 suits many practical needs for those who require different cartridge options. I play everything from 1930's 78 RPM discs to modern day LP audiophile superdiscs and in between. No one cartridge does this all. And some people need more rugged designs than a delicate MC. Be mindful of this. Practical needs must be considered too. Some people ultimate performance trumps all. But some need practicality and have needs that the less flexible approach does not meet. I like better MM, MI, and MC cartridges (but find I use the MC only on special occasions with a selected few records). Your experiences and mileage as always may vary. I own more than one turntable and arm, as I need options. Tonearms without standard headshell options for me are unsuited for anything but specialist use, or I'd need 3 tonearms always available.

I agree with all that Kent, but that wasn't the point, had nothing to do with choice or options or that one wants to pick over another.

It has to do with bang for the buck, to a low budget table upgrade from another low budget table. Basically saying the cartridge will give the biggest SQ change over buying another new moderate table under a grand for the given dollars spent.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

Great point, but also bear in mind the tonearm needs to be suitable for the cartridge at hand. And does make a difference if the arm plays nice with it. Providing it is, go for it.

 

[4-2-7]

Great point, but also bear in mind the tonearm needs to be suitable for the cartridge at hand. And does make a difference if the arm plays nice with it. Providing it is, go for it.

Agreed again, , it's just a general statement, and individual cases/equipment need to be evaluated.

 

[JP]

But I have read that MC cart design is basicly better than MM basic design on principle?

Not in the slightest, IMO. Different trade-offs, and different requirements. In the past many of the most accurate carts were MM, and indeed at least one that has never been bested is an MM. There are superb examples of both.

The modern landscape is quite different though, as effort goes to fashion and with the recent upsetting of boron cantilevers it looks like the chasm between the two is destined to further widen.

That said, I can count on one hand the people I know who truly seek as accurate of playback as possible. There's only one way for you to decide what's important to you.

 

[enginedr]

Not in the slightest, IMO. Different trade-offs, and different requirements. In the past many of the most accurate carts were MM, and indeed at least one that has never been bested is an MM. There are superb examples of both.

The modern landscape is quite different though, as effort goes to fashion and with the recent upsetting of boron cantilevers it looks like the chasm between the two is destined to further widen.

That said, I can count on one hand the people I know who truly seek as accurate of playback as possible. There's only one way for you to decide what's important to you.

I have to agree with JP last year he demonstrated to me 4 different MM cartridges the most accurate was a Technics p-mount with a boron cantilever.
I have a TOTL digital front end . A friend gifted me a Nagaoka Jeweltone RT-3 ribbon cartridge . My digital and analog sources sound more alike .
I also have a Ortofon SL-15 MC that is warm and pleasing to listen too but not accurate . I much prefer the accurate

 

[JP]

Next time will be Technics' best MC, if the example I have on the way is healthy. I also plan on putting the XV-1s on the PS-X9, assuming it arrives intact. It'll be the only arm I have suitable to that cart.

 

[nailer]

I have to agree with JP last year he demonstrated to me 4 different MM cartridges the most accurate was a Technics p-mount with a boron cantilever.
I have a TOTL digital front end . A friend gifted me a Nagaoka Jeweltone RT-3 ribbon cartridge . My digital and analog sources sound more alike .
I also have a Ortofon SL-15 MC that is warm and pleasing to listen too but not accurate . I much prefer the accurate

I have noticed that MM sounds closer to digital than MC or MI.

 

[twiiii]

Back in the 60's 70's and 80's there were only LOMC cartridges. And by the 80's the prices were really escalating and as I was unhappy with the LP in general instead of spending big bucks on a new Ortofon I went with a V-15 MR and a Stanton 981 Stanton. They tracked well, very well and as I gave away my first record collection, only keeping a few Sheffields, Telarc and Original Masters felt no remorse. Back in the middle 2000's Frank Gow said I was really missing out on a big part of great source material and sent me an unannounced surprise! A HO Dynavector. Well it really out performed the Shure and Stanton and didn't require a pre-preamp or the pesky step up transformers. In a few of years I had a 20 X2 HO I'm using today. Its great sound. There are no hum issues and no noise issues that can easily show up with SUT's and Pre-pre-amps. Now I admit I just bought a MP100 which will allow me to step up to a XX-2 etc if I wish. The purchase was to add flexibility to the system as my second system preamp is over 50 ft away, doesn't have a phono input and having the the balanced line outputs allow that connection with out loss. It also allows me to by pass my C-34 while it is being sent to Audio Classics for repairs. The MP100 has the ability to change loads for MM and LOMC if I choose in the future, Plus has digital out to drive my CD recorders and computer if I wish. It will also fit physically into my installation where new Mac pre-amp units that are 17" wide and are very deep won't.

As to the Quality of the HOMC I find the Dynavector to be a great solution. It has the sound quality of the older Ortofons I loved and with the new stylus profile easily tracks difficult passages the older Ortofons could not trace properly. It has a smoothness or response and wonderful freedom from noise and distortion the older Ortofon, MC30, SL 15 and Sl20 in their many variations could not equal. So for me the Dynavector has been a great addition to my system. 2.2 gram tracking pressure with the weight being spread more evenly across the groove is of no concern. Its different profile reduces nicks pops and clicks as compared to elliptical stylus of older Ortofons and allows great tracing like the V-15 and Stantopn 981, but a magnitude better quality. As for stylus replacement and damage you just have to be incontrol of your thought patterns when using the system. If you are a fumble fingers or have a tone arm that isn't damped , you had better stick with internet downloads. Unfortunatly, folks that can't handle LP's and tone arms can't seem to protect their digital discs either.

 

[AvFan]

I found one review ( http://hifipig.com/hana-s-range-moving-coil-cartridges/) that directly compared the Hana SL high and low output versions. These cartridges are identical except for the low and high output (relatively speaking at 2mV) so may shed some light on the advantages of low versus high output. There may have been some bias since the reviewer stated he liked LOMCs better but the edge between high over low seems pretty minor. At least for the Hana cartridges your choice of a high or low output model may come down to what kind of phono preamp you have.

 

[Gibsonian]

If you take a look at what companies are offering the flagship MC carts are nearly all LOMC. Lower inductance is possible with less windings and resulting lower output. Combine with their best styli and you have their best sounding cart.