• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Need a little MC advice

-reverb-

Buying, selling... mainly buying
Hey Folks,

Me again... unfortunately not much brighter about TT's since last time I posed my last question. I am trying, but for some reason it's a steep learning curve for me - not sure why.

Anywho, I am thinking of testing the waters on Moving Coil cartridges but I am a bit confused as to what I can get away with.

I understand that MC produce way less input voltages than MM. What I am trying to determine is if my Scott 299B would work properly with MC as the input or would I need a Step-Up Transformer?

In the Scott manual it talks about Mag Hi/Lo Inputs & Ceramic Inputs but nothing about MC. I'm guessing MC was not a thing when the Scott manual was written

So.... the cart I am looking at is producing ~ .18 mV which, I think, is WAY below what the ceramic input expects.

My guess is I need a SUT, right?

Thanks
 
Register to hide this ad
Ceramic carts generally put out a higher voltage than MM carts, you would want to use the Mag input, and most likely on the "low" setting, but consult the manual to be sure.

In any case, if you want to use an MC cart that has only .18mV output, you are going to need a SUT or a head amp. Seeing as how the Scott 299B is all tube, you would probably be more interested in the SUT rather than a head amp, as the latter is transistorized. You can determine what transformer would be best based on the output impedance of your cartridge and what gain you need; some manufacturers have recommendations in their user manuals.

However, if you want to test the waters with MC carts but don't want to hassle with SUTs, you can search for a HOMC, like the Denon DL-110/160, the Sumiko Blue Point № 2, and the Dynavector 10x5 are all popular options.
 
Last edited:
Thanks so much for all who are trying to help educate me on this, here is my disconnect

Comparing the Denon DL-304 @ .18 mV to the Denon DL-110 @ 1.6mV ......

What's the trade-off????
 
Hey Folks,

Me again... unfortunately not much brighter about TT's since last time I posed my last question. I am trying, but for some reason it's a steep learning curve for me - not sure why.

Anywho, I am thinking of testing the waters on Moving Coil cartridges but I am a bit confused as to what I can get away with.

I understand that MC produce way less input voltages than MM. What I am trying to determine is if my Scott 299B would work properly with MC as the input or would I need a Step-Up Transformer?

In the Scott manual it talks about Mag Hi/Lo Inputs & Ceramic Inputs but nothing about MC. I'm guessing MC was not a thing when the Scott manual was written

So.... the cart I am looking at is producing ~ .18 mV which, I think, is WAY below what the ceramic input expects.

My guess is I need a SUT, right?

Thanks

You CANNOT use input for ceramic cartridge with ANY magnetic type cartridge - neither MM, nor MC.

You will need SUT for MC cartridge using Scott in magnetic cartridge mode. When we talk MC, we usually assume "low output" MC cartridges. There is no advantage of using "high output" MC cartridges over MM type. Output signal from "low output" MC is 0.5mV or less.
 
Thanks so much for all who are trying to help educate me on this, here is my disconnect

Comparing the Denon DL-304 @ .18 mV to the Denon DL-110 @ 1.6mV ......

What's the trade-off????

You will need a very good SUT, example: Denon AU-1000 :)
 
The ceramic cartridge input isn’t suitable, as it doesn’t include RIAA equalisation, and is only suitable for ceramic (or crystal) cartridges, which have a very high output voltage.

I suspect even the high gain (Mag Hi) magnetic cartridge option (which is for low output MM’s) won’t have enough gain. From the schematic, it also loads the cartridge at 47kilohms, which is standard for MM cartridges, but much higher than necessary for all MC cartridges, which need (typically) between 50 and 1000 ohms for best performance (around 400 is ideal for the DL-304 – Denon say 100 ohms or higher). The Mag Lo position just inserts a 100kilohm resistor in series with the input, to lower the level.

So you’d be best using an SUT into the magnetic cartridge input, or a MC phono preamp into one of the high level inputs (tuner or tape).

Good Denon SUT’s well suited to the DL-304 cartridge include the following models (best at the bottom):

AU-250 no specs known, so I don't know how good it was - it was only ever sold in conjunction with the DL-300 as the DL-300/T

AU-301
20Hz-20kHz +0.5-2dB

DL-103T
20Hz-20kHz -2dB, designed to match with DL-103

AU-103
– 1995 design, 20Hz-50kHz, for cartridges 3-40 Ω, sold in conjunction with the DL-103R as the DL-103R/T

AU-310 – 1974 design, matches cartridges 40Ω or less, frequency response 20Hz-40kHz ±1dB (from the Denon graph, 50kHz is roughly -2dB), double shielded. As the DL-103S was also introduced the same year for CD-4 quadraphonic use, it was probably designed to match with that. I can personally confirm that this works well with the DL-304, as I own one.

AU-300LC
– 20Hz-50kHz, for cartridges 3-40 Ω, double shielded, Linear Crystal Oxygen Free Copper wiring, current model available new from several places at a reasonable price

AU-305 1978 introduction, 20Hz - 70KHz ± 1dB, matches cartridges 40Ω or less, double shielded, supplied as DL-103/TII, a 15th anniversary special matching combination of DL-103 and step-up transformer AU-305

AU-S1 – recently-discontinued 1992 design to match with the recently-discontinued DL-S1 cartridge, still may be available new, impedance 3-40Ω, 10Hz-80kHz ±1dB. The S1 ‘Sensitive One’ series were a high end series of Denon components

AU-320 – 10Hz-100kHz ±1dB, switchable impedance 3Ω or 40 Ω suits any cartridge between those limits, switchable choice of two cartridge inputs – i.e. two turntables, triple shielded
I can personally confirm that this works well with the DL-304, as I own one.

AU-340 – 10Hz-120kHz +0.5-1.0dB, switchable impedance 3Ω or 40 Ω suits any cartridge between those limits, switchable choice of two cartridge inputs – i.e. two turntables, multiple shields

AU-1000 – Introduced 1983, 5Hz-200kHz, impedance matches 10-40Ω cartridges http://www.denon.jp/JP/MUSEUM/products/au1000.html . This was designed to mate with their superb DL-1000a cartridge, so had extraordinary performance, but they are very rare and expensive.

Many of these are only available used, but as SUT's don't wear out, still work as well as they did when new. The only ones available new are the AU-300LC, and possibly the AU-S1.

Comparing the Denon DL-304 @ .18 mV to the Denon DL-110 @ 1.6mV ......

What's the trade-off????

Higher tracking force for the DL-110 (1.8 versus 1.2g), and hence more record wear.

The DL-110 coils are also bigger and heavier, to produce the much higher voltage. The cantilever on the DL-304 is also double-telescoped (a tube within a tube within a tube, smallest tube closest to the diamond tip), so is much lighter than the DL-110's cantilever.

The lighter cantilever and smaller coils on the DL-304 add up to much lower equivalent tip mass, which means better tracking due to much lower inertia, lower distortion and better sound quality.
 
Last edited:
I've never had or even heard a DL-304. I've had a DL-110 for a year or so and have enjoyed it. It's a fun cartridge and gives a taste of what moving coil has to offer. Rather recently, I've been using a DL-301 MkII. To my ear, it's in a different league than the 110. On an album like Rickie Lee Jones' first, the 301 brings out inner details that I didn't even know were there.
 
I've never had or even heard a DL-304. I've had a DL-110 for a year or so and have enjoyed it. It's a fun cartridge and gives a taste of what moving coil has to offer. Rather recently, I've been using a DL-301 MkII. To my ear, it's in a different league than the 110. On an album like Rickie Lee Jones' first, the 301 brings out inner details that I didn't even know were there.

It's even better, although double the price of the DL-301 MkII.

Both the DL-304 and DL-301 MkII are related to the DL-303, and both were first released in 1984. The DL-303 was one of the best available cartridges from the late-70’s, and a few reviewers named it as the best. It had a very low moving mass (0.18mg), which enabled its very good sound and very extended, very flat frequency response (70kHz). It replaced the DL-103D (65kHz, 1.5g tracking force) as Denon's best, although the DL-103D continued in production for many more decades. The DL-303 didn’t remain the world’s best cartridge for long, as Denon introduced three better models soon (1980 – DL-305, 1982 – DL-1000A, 1984 – DL-304).

The DL-301 MkII was an upgrade of the DL-301 (0.27mg tip mass), and borrowed the DL-303’s tapered aluminium cantilever for lower tip mass.

The DL-304 was an upgrade of the DL-303 (which it replaced in the model line), with lighter non-magnetic coil formers, and borrowed the superb DL-103D’s (RIP) double telescopic, tapered cantilever for even lower tip mass and even better frequency response (75kHz), and the same low tracking force as the DL-303 (1.2g). It’s only made in small batches every few years, so isn’t always available everywhere, but was back in the 2016 Denon catalogues, so it is a current model, and like the DL-103D (no longer made, but a current model last decade in small batches), it costs roughly double the price of the DL-301 MkII, which reflects the relative performance, which is better for the DL-304 (but not twice as good, of course).

Both are still bargains in comparison to other manufacturer’s models of similar quality.
 
Higher tracking force for the DL-110 (1.8 versus 1.2g), and hence more record wear..

You don't get any 'record wear' with a properly set up cartridge following the manufacturer's recommendation. The recommended tracking weights are designed to keep the stylus in the groove, and will not damage your records. I have records that have been played hundreds of times, and they don't have any evidence of 'wear'.
 
Hi/Lo on your HH Scott is HI is ceramic cartridges, low is MM or MI cartridges. So, you need a pre-preamplifier or Step-Up transformer to work a low output MC into that phono stage if you plan on using it. Tracking towards the medium to high end of the cartridge manufacturer's force range is best for tracking capability, and causes less record wear. Mistracking (which can happen at the lighter end of the force range) can and does inflict more record wear. Mistracking can and has damaged records. .
 
You don't get any 'record wear' with a properly set up cartridge following the manufacturer's recommendation. The recommended tracking weights are designed to keep the stylus in the groove, and will not damage your records. I have records that have been played hundreds of times, and they don't have any evidence of 'wear'.

It's been well proven that records do wear. In fact, there's plenty of evidence, to show that high frequency response starts to reduce in level from the very first playing, and distortion and noise starts increasing.

Note that I'm not talking about high tracking forces either, when I'm talking about wear - the tests I've seen have always been using high quality cartridges, on excellent turntables or tonearms. For instance, one magazine showed the frequency response of a CBS test record (tested with a new elliptical stylus tracking at 1.5g) on the first play. After playing that record one hundred times, the frequency response was tested again, and the frequency response had reduced quite noticeably (both graphs were overlaid on the one scale) above 2kHz - it was 2.5dB lower at 20kHz, 2dB lower at 10kHz, and 0.5dB lower at 3kHz, compared to the response when new.

An engineer writing for another magazine did a similar test, also at 1.5g tracking force, and third harmonic distortion had more than doubled after playing his test record 100 times. He also found that the level at 40kHz on a different test record had been reduced by over 6dB, after it had been played 100 times, and the wideband noise level had also risen significantly.

So to say that there's no record wear with a good quality hi-fi cartridge, well set up and tracking at the recommended tracking force, doesn't agree with the evidence, from multiple sources (those are just two I quoted - there are many more).:)

However, I would suggest that what you hear has crept up gradually, as it's also been proven that the human brain is very poor at remembering what it heard some time ago. So that's why you think there's no difference in your old records, compared to when they were new. You'd probably hear the difference by playing an identical new record, and comparing it to the same record that's been played multiple times, but luckily those who work in audio did, and took plenty of measurements to prove that record wear is very real (I worked as an engineer in an audio-related field, hence my interest, and why I know where to find tests like that).
 
My "notify me if someone makes a post" thingy is not working apparently. I had no idea such well thought-out and informative posts had been made.

It will take me a bit of time to digest this, but I did want to offer my sincere thanks to all that replied!

You folks are a wealth of knowledge! :thumbsup:
 
ETI_5000, that's an impressive (and depressing) array of facts. Maybe the tests were done quite awhile ago (elliptical stylus = more wear than today's fancier styli, and that CBS test record is pretty old) — but of course I don't know. You don't cite the magazine you saw it in — was it recent, or a memory?

About a month ago I read (now the shoe's on my foot, I don't recall the source, on the web of course) that a controlled test using the latest/greatest/ superest/everything played an LP 1,200 times with no discernible loss of quality.

We live, as they say, in a "post-truth era". There was a rumor during the election that one of the candidates was running a child-rape ring in the basement of a take-out pizza joint in New Jersey. Seemed to me at the time that this rumor failed some basic plausibility tests, but lots of people believed it — one guy even went there with a shotgun to save the kids.

We used to know things for sure — but now....? Blame Heisenberg.
 
There is no advantage of using "high output" MC cartridges over MM type.

I would strongly disagree with this. I used, for many years, a Sumiko Alchemist, a HOMC, which was the best cartridge I've ever had. Granted, there are benefits to a LOMC that are lost in the HO versions, but the Alchemist was designed specifically to overcome that.

Hi/Lo on your HH Scott is HI is ceramic cartridges, low is MM or MI cartridges.

Hmm, don't think so, Kent. The Hi/Lo switch affects gain on the mag phono input, back when there was need for such. Not so much these days. The ceramic or crystal input is separate.

As always, just my opinion, YMMV. Just ask Heisenberg's cat.

Cheers,
Larry B.
 
ETI_5000, that's an impressive (and depressing) array of facts. Maybe the tests were done quite awhile ago

They were, but that doesn't make them any less relevant.

that CBS test record is pretty old

It is.

elliptical stylus = more wear than today's fancier styli

That's true. However, of 'today's fancier styli', the three best are the Fritz Gyger (1987), Microridge (1983) and van den Hul (1981) - there haven't been any significant developments since then.

There hasn’t been much research on vinyl record reproduction (including stylus shapes) done since the 1980’s, when the format went out of common use.

While extended line contacts will cause lower record wear than an elliptical, the high frequencies will still be the first to go.

You don't cite the magazine you saw it in — was it recent, or a memory?

A memory.:)

Sources:
Audio, Feb 1980, pages 64-67 & 95

Australian Hi-fi, Volume 10 No. 9 (1979), pages 132-137 (still published, incidentally, but like most magazines, the only one of these that still is)

Electronics Today International (Australian edition), Jan 1981, pages 124-128

Radio Electronics, March 1976, pages 41-43 & 98-99 and Sept 1979, pages 57-59

About a month ago I read (now the shoe's on my foot, I don't recall the source, on the web of course) that a controlled test using the latest/greatest/ superest/everything played an LP 1,200 times with no discernible loss of quality.

‘No discernible loss of quality’ just means they didn’t measure anything! If they had measured distortion, noise and frequency response, they’d know that there was a loss of quality.

I’d also be surprised if anyone was willing to play the same test record, measuring it for distortion, noise and frequency response before and after the repeated plays, for much longer than 100 times. 1200 times would definitely need measurements, because of the human ear's notoriously short-term memory - it's hard to remember accurately what we heard 10 minutes ago, let alone several days ago (probably more like a week, given they'd need to sleep...). It gets lost in all the other things (noise?) the brain is doing at the same time.
 
Back
Top Bottom