"No Point" getting higher end MM if you can properly run MC as well

[GordonW]

Disagreeing is an insult? Appreciate the data but it’s not conclusive and largely mis-attributed, as the post-script points out.

This is really simple to test empirically. You can play a track with only one channel modulated, short that channel, and measure the effect on the unmodulated channel. You can feed a signal to one coil and measure the other.

The problem there, is that these coils are orthogonal to each other- for good reason.

If driving, or shorting, one, could significantly affect the other- then stereo separation would be exceedingly poor.

In this situation- the vibration in one dimension, would tend to stay in that dimension (by Newton's Third Law)- the transmission of vibration to an orthogonal dimension, mechanically, should be greatly attenuated, unless the cartridge body or cantilever assembly is very flimsy (too many degrees of motional freedom). So, if one coil mechanically "rings", the other coil should be hard pressed to "hear" that ringing.

An explanation as to how this test would result in anything useful, would be greatly appreciated. Not trying to be snide here.

As for the electrical ringing observed- it is VERY reasonable to think that this COULD result in a perceived brightness. No electrical amplification system is ever completely linear. Extraordinarily high-gain amplifiers (i.e, phono stages) are especially susceptible to sum and difference resultants (beat frequencies, and such) being produced between audio frequencies and ringing overtones. These can map all over the spectrum- but likely, would be most perceptible in ranges of the spectrum with less energy occuring naturally- the high-frequency region...

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[JP]

The problem there, is that these coils are orthogonal to each other- for good reason.

If driving, or shorting, one, could significantly affect the other- then stereo separation would be exceedingly poor.

In this situation- the vibration in one dimension, would tend to stay in that dimension (by Newton's Third Law)- the transmission of vibration to an orthogonal dimension, mechanically, should be greatly attenuated, unless the cartridge body or cantilever assembly is very flimsy (too many degrees of motional freedom). So, if one coil mechanically "rings", the other coil should be hard pressed to "hear" that ringing.

An explanation as to how this test would result in anything useful, would be greatly appreciated. Not trying to be snide here.

As for the electrical ringing observed- it is VERY reasonable to think that this COULD result in a perceived brightness. No electrical amplification system is ever completely linear. Extraordinarily high-gain amplifiers (i.e, phono stages) are especially susceptible to sum and difference resultants (beat frequencies, and such) being produced between audio frequencies and ringing overtones. These can map all over the spectrum- but likely, would be most perceptible in ranges of the spectrum with less energy occuring naturally- the high-frequency region...

Regards,
Gordon.

Imperfect world, sensitive measurement equipment. I prefer the first method of shorting the modulated channel as that's going to force the body to move which will induce signal in the unmodulated groove. Regardless, the contention was the notion of electromechanical damping.

 

[sqlsavior]

A positive-scanning MI takes the award at this house.

Ortofon SPU Synergy GM versus London Decca Super Gold

Here's a post that I put up for a while after I'd gotten my Teac TT fixed, and the Synergy SPU back in service: I got my Teac TN-400 turntable working again recently... http://audiokarma.org/forums/index....tn-400-turntable-speed-control-repair.740329/ …which means I have a place to mount my...

audiokarma.org

 

[flavio81]

AT-3600L is not a reference cartridge to an old school professional.

You were speaking about cutting engineers and their work. I already explained why they need to test records using representative cartridges...

 

[wyn palmer]

AT-3600L is not a reference cartridge to an old school professional. Shure's V-15 Type VxMR is, Stanton 881-S is. My tough for MC cartridges records, are many mono 45 RPM singles, and many early RCA Living Stereo, original Belock Everest LP discs, and Mercury Stereo into the middle 1960's. Hard to track without breakup by most LOMC.

And yet, I have all of the above LPs (a complete collection of shaded dogs, Everest and Mercury Living Presence, oh and Decca/London (same stampers) and do not experience "breakup" with my phonostage/cartridge. How can that be?

 

[Morgan D]

And yet, I have all of the above LPs (a complete collection of shaded dogs, Everest and Mercury Living Presence, oh and Decca/London (same stampers) and do not experience "breakup" with my phonostage/cartridge. How can that be?

Because Wyn, you have all the cool stuff. I too have some of those labels and my retipped Denon 103 sounds fine . On the other hand ,my high freq hearing isn't the best.

 

[ripblade]

I haven't noticed any difference between MM and MC when it comes to tracking ability. Stylus profiles, most definitely! I find the domestic labels generally well behaved, it's the imports that give me problems. I have an Electrecord from Romania that is cut so hot that only a sharp MR will track it without distorting. Some DGG as well, particularly Archiv.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

And yet, I have all of the above LPs (a complete collection of shaded dogs, Everest and Mercury Living Presence, oh and Decca/London (same stampers) and do not experience "breakup" with my phonostage/cartridge. How can that be?

Maybe yours is optimally set up and you got the right LOMC cartridge. The LOMC breed has improved. But I wish we had the Stanton 981 LOMI or the Pickering sibling (it does everything LOMC does better without the disadvantages of the LOMC) I call those the Dyslexic Moving Coil turned inside out.

 

[nailer]

Maybe yours is optimally set up and you got the right LOMC cartridge. The LOMC breed has improved. But I wish we had the Stanton 981 LOMI or the Pickering sibling (it does everything LOMC does better without the disadvantages of the LOMC) I call those the Dyslexic Moving Coil turned inside out.

LOMI's are readily available from Grado and Soundsmith.

 

[wyn palmer]

Maybe yours is optimally set up and you got the right LOMC cartridge. The LOMC breed has improved. But I wish we had the Stanton 981 LOMI or the Pickering sibling (it does everything LOMC does better without the disadvantages of the LOMC) I call those the Dyslexic Moving Coil turned inside out.

I've been essentially using LOMC for many years now, with some dalliance into Soundsmith LOMI.
Yes, the LOMCs do not track as well as say, a Shure V15, but in practical terms they pretty well all have done fine, even with Telarc recordings, and the apparent increase in resolution that most of them provide is quite welcome.
However, I have recently had a chance to hear a number of MM units in action as part of the Pyxi comparison process, and the difference between LOMC and MM was not as great as I had imagined it to be.

 

[Mr Boochie]

I've been essentially using LOMC for many years now, with some dalliance into Soundsmith LOMI.
Yes, the LOMCs do not track as well as say, a Shure V15, but in practical terms they pretty well all have done fine, even with Telarc recordings, and the apparent increase in resolution that most of them provide is quite welcome.
However, I have recently had a chance to hear a number of MM units in action as part of the Pyxi comparison process, and the difference between LOMC and MM was not as great as I had imagined it to be.

I didn't realize that MC cartridges tend to be poorer at tracking high modulation portions of LPs, than MM cartridges, of the same cost range.

 

[Sgt Shultz]

I didn't realize that MC cartridges tend to be poorer at tracking high modulation portions of LPs, than MM cartridges, of the same cost range.

MC are by and large lower compliance, no secret why. It's really a non-starter as it makes little difference with 99.99% of the recordings out there, and their other advantages more than make up for any perceived shortcomings.

 

[Mr Boochie]

MC are by and large lower compliance, no secret why. It's really a non-starter as it makes little difference with 99.99% of the recordings out there, and their other advantages more than make up for any perceived shortcomings.

Are MC cartridges more dependent on being on tonearms with low-friction pivot points, than MM cartridges?

Tante grazie!

 

[Sgt Shultz]

Are MC cartridges more dependent on being on tonearms with low-friction pivot points, than MM cartridges?

Tante grazie!

Not seeing any reason why both wouldn't benefit from better bearings, but my thinking would be cartridges tracking at very low VTF would be more apt to show the results of less than stellar bearings. These same carts seem to have issues with sibilance on arms not up to the task.

 

[Mr Boochie]

Not seeing any reason why both wouldn't benefit from better bearings, but my thinking would be cartridges tracking at very low VTF would be more apt to show the results of less than stellar bearings. These same carts seem to have issues with sibilance on arms not up to the task.

Thanks, for confirming this.

 

[ripblade]

All cartridges are, by and large, lower compliance today than they used to be. The only major exception are the aftermarket needles for vintage MM when they're made to OEM spec. Back when high compliance was the noble pursuit the were a number LOMC that played well with low mass arms. Stiff or soft suspensions are not the domain of any one type.

 

[KentTeffeteller]

LOMI's are readily available from Grado and Soundsmith.

But not with user-replaceable styli. Grado could do that easily. I love both makes. Grado also does down to earth very well, as well as higher end.