Which is best MM or MC?

[Mr. Lin]

I wonder why it is that those who favour MC cartridges make this issue a personal one, and misrepresent others when these components come under due scrutiny. It does not betoken confidence in the MC principle.


One is well aware of that argument, but has it been proved? Is it true that MCs always have lower effective tip mass than MMs or MIs?

How much of the perceived quality of MCs is due to the moving coil principle, and how much is due to, for instance, a nude, mirror-polished line contact diamond of exceptional radii, mounted on a boron cantilever, feeding an advanced, hand-assembled generator? Would a MM or MI given the same level of care produce a similar result?

I'm not making this personal, and I'm not misrepresenting you, that's exactly what you're saying. We're not talking about tip mass, we're talking about coil windings. And I'm bringing this up because you seem to be on a campaign to convince everyone that MC cartridges aren't really that different from MM cartridge, that it's in the owner's head if he thinks MC has advantages because it's MC, and that really only the diamond tip and cantilever are of real consequence.

 

[tawny]

I'm not making this personal, and I'm not misrepresenting you, that's exactly what you're saying.

It's what you wish I am saying, imv.

We're not talking about tip mass, we're talking about coil windings.

But effective tip mass is largely dependent on windings in the case of MCs.

And I'm bringing this up because you seem to be on a campaign to convince everyone that MC cartridges aren't really that different from MM cartridge

Where has that been stated?

that it's in the owner's head if he thinks MC has advantages because it's MC

Where has that been stated?

and that really only the diamond tip and cantilever are of real consequence.

Not so. What has been stated is that, if a diamond and cantilever cannot extract sufficient signal from the groove, it does not matter what the generator type is. Obviously, a low effective tip mass is desirable for fast transient response, but it is not necessarily true that LOMCs have lower effective tip mass than MMs or MIs.

How much of the perceived quality of MCs is due to the moving coil principle, and how much is due to, for instance, a nude, mirror-polished line contact diamond of exceptional radii, mounted on a boron cantilever, feeding an advanced, hand-assembled generator? Would a MM or MI given the same level of care produce a similar result?

 

[niklasthedol]

I wonder why it is that those who favour MC cartridges make this issue a personal one, and misrepresent others when these components come under due scrutiny. It does not betoken confidence in the MC principle.


One is well aware of that argument, but has it been proved? Is it true that MCs always have lower effective tip mass than MMs or MIs?

How much of the perceived quality of MCs is due to the moving coil principle, and how much is due to, for instance, a nude, mirror-polished line contact diamond of exceptional radii, mounted on a boron cantilever, feeding an advanced, hand-assembled generator? Would a MM or MI given the same level of care produce a similar result?

Why don't you just make a thread with this subject?

But I can asure you that on those cartridges realistic to compare in the mid- to high end, the moving mass is lighter on LOMC compared to MM/MI.
Why at all consider MI here, I would say.

Please name a few great MI cartridges???

There is the Live cartridges from Music Man and Decca but these are only for certain genres of music.
Then there are the highly overpriced cartridges from Soundsmith (B&O remakes) and i have yet to hear anybody say they sound great and I know they don't if they are similar to the sound of the original B&O cartridges.
Then there's all the low-en Grado, Pickering and Stanton and the fluffy "high-end" Grado.

Come on................MI is from a bygone era.

Forget the Low Effective Tip mass.
It is the low moving mass due to much less moving mass the cantilever has to work around in the housing of the cartridge, making LOMC so much more responsive and dynamic.

"dolph"

 

[tawny]

Why don't you just make a thread with this subject?

Again, a poster declares lack of confidence in MCs.

But I can asure you

Nobody who starts a post as in the above case can assure anyone of anything. Facts are required.

that on those cartridges realistic to compare in the mid- to high end, the moving mass is lighter on LOMC compared to MM/MI.

Can we see data?

 

[niklasthedol]

Again, a poster declares lack of confidence in MCs.

Do you believe it's wise to start psychoanalyzing me?
Are you sure you will be able to finish that job?

My lack of confidence is not in LOMCs/MCs (nor motorcycles) but generated by the fact that all creating of HiFi is based upon compromises.

Nobody who starts a post as in the above case can assure anyone of anything. Facts are required.

There are no facts when we talk listening experiences from reproduced music.

Can we see data?

Typical DIY demand.
:lmao:

"dolph"

 

[tawny]

Do you believe it's wise to start psychoanalyzing me?

Until effective moving mass figures are presented, it seems that there is nothing better to talk about. :yes:

 

[niklasthedol]

Until effective moving mass figures are presented, it seems that there is nothing better to talk about. :yes:

Starting with my childhood or my third age?

"dolph"

 

[tawny]

Starting with my childhood or my third age?

"dolph"

Suit yourself.

 

[gx502]

Which is better, MM or MC ?

I don't know, I suspect one is not better than the other, just different. I agree with the poster above that it's all about intelligent compromises.

(Well perhaps a Koetsu Coralstone will kick the ass of all the MM's in the known universe, but I cannot afford one (well not yet anyhows). So to me this type of discussion is fairly academic. Even if MC types have particular attributes over MM types and vice-versa, then only this part of the debate is educational. But it only helps if you know what you like, and what you are aiming for?)

I would advise not to get hung up on any one aspect of the technology, since IMHO in this hobby its more about putting components together that work well, than it is about pure $$$'s or any single star component.

Also, my get out clause is that "one mans meat, is another man's poison", this hobby is very much based on personal taste/preferences.

Well that's my $0.02 worth....

 

[niklasthedol]

Suit yourself.

Well.................. You're the DIY analyzer?

"dolph"

 

[tawny]

Which is better, MM or MC ?

I don't know, I suspect one is not better than the other, just different. I agree with the poster above that it's all about intelligent compromises.

(Well perhaps a Koetsu Coralstone will kick the ass of all the MM's in the known universe

Why not MCs, too? Or are we contradicting the first paragraph, here?

but I cannot afford one (well not yet anyhows).

What does it sound like?

 

[niklasthedol]

Buttom line is:

If you're on a tight budget, you will find MM gives best sound for the money.
If money is no problem, LOMC have potential the best quality of sound.

Reason for this is that it takes more craftmanship to manufacture a great sounding LOMC and therefor it's priced higher.
And to get the advantages from the increased quality of sound, it takes a greater, and most probably also more expensive, active RIAA / phono stage to amplify the signal and it will also demand higher quality from the rest of the chain of gear to make it possible to hear the improvement.

"dolph"

 

[tawny]

Buttom line is:

If you're on a tight budget, you will find MM gives best sound for the money.
If money is no problem, LOMC have potential the best quality of sound.

Why is that? Is it because MCs have magical properties imbued by mystical Japanese craftsmen who have turned their skills from making exotic swords to cartridges? Is it because MCs have lower effective tip mass?

Or is this idea unscientific hype?

Reason for this is that it takes more craftmanship to manufacture a great sounding LOMC and therefor it's priced higher.

That's not true. It takes more manufacturing processes to attach coils to cantilevers than it does to attach magnets or iron to cantilevers. Ergo, to make an MC is inherently more expensive than making other sorts, irrespective of quality. To buy something just because it is more expensive is perhaps what cartridge manufacturers might encourage, but it is silly. As with all fields of engineering, the commonsense approach is to opt for simpler construction, unless advantage for a more complex method can be explained.

The bottom line here seems to be that, if MCs are inherently superior, nobody can explain why that is so.

 

[gusten]

This is how I see it; There is nothing superior in either of the designs, just different approaches regarding engines. To generalize, and state that one principle is better is not valid without objectively present why.

If we subjectively believe one cartridge is very good, we must look elsewhere than the engine for the understanding of why.

Effective mass are normally higher on MCs than on MMs, that is one reason for MMs to be (normally) better tracker.

MCs can sometimes use better cantilevers, diamonds and more ridgid bodies, it´s much more likely that we should look for differences in that field, than state that differences are depending on engine types.
gusten

 

[niklasthedol]

Why is that? Is it because MCs have magical properties imbued by mystical Japanese craftsmen who have turned their skills from making exotic swords to cartridges? Is it because MCs have lower effective tip mass?

Or is this idea unscientific hype?


That's not true. It takes more manufacturing processes to attach coils to cantilevers than it does to attach magnets or iron to cantilevers. Ergo, to make an MC is inherently more expensive than making other sorts, irrespective of quality. To buy something just because it is more expensive is perhaps what cartridge manufacturers might encourage, but it is silly. As with all fields of engineering, the commonsense approach is to opt for simpler construction, unless advantage for a more complex method can be explained.

The bottom line here seems to be that, if MCs are inherently superior, nobody can explain why that is so.

Wrong posting

 

[niklasthedol]

Why is that? Is it because MCs have magical properties imbued by mystical Japanese craftsmen who have turned their skills from making exotic swords to cartridges? Is it because MCs have lower effective tip mass?

Or is this idea unscientific hype?


That's not true. It takes more manufacturing processes to attach coils to cantilevers than it does to attach magnets or iron to cantilevers. Ergo, to make an MC is inherently more expensive than making other sorts, irrespective of quality. To buy something just because it is more expensive is perhaps what cartridge manufacturers might encourage, but it is silly. As with all fields of engineering, the commonsense approach is to opt for simpler construction, unless advantage for a more complex method can be explained.

The bottom line here seems to be that, if MCs are inherently superior, nobody can explain why that is so.

It's not true what you write.

"dolph"

 

[Pio1980]

I think the phase response characteristics are different due to the higher inductance of MM/MI vs MC and particularly LOMC. If so, theoretically, LOMCs should be more 'honest' thru a simple and good head amp than thru a transformer. I tend not to trust carts that 'need' lots of shunt capacitance for that reason. Carts that have no L/C factor like piezo, strain guage, and other similar have their own unique qualities and probably any phase anomalies are mechanically related rather than L/C related.

 

[tawny]

I think the phase response characteristics are different due to the higher inductance of MM/MI vs MC and particularly LOMC.

In that case, a MM design with a few windings on the coils, as in a MC, should correct phase. But there are no manufacturers producing LOMM, afaik. So maybe this is not a significant factor.

 

[gusten]

I think the phase response characteristics are different due to the higher inductance of MM/MI vs MC and particularly LOMC. If so, theoretically, LOMCs should be more 'honest' thru a simple and good head amp than thru a transformer. I tend not to trust carts that 'need' lots of shunt capacitance for that reason. Carts that have no L/C factor like piezo, strain guage, and other similar have their own unique qualities and probably any phase anomalies are mechanically related rather than L/C related.

Phase responses from music above 10kHz, what is what we normally talk about here, are totally meaningsless IMO, we have no way of knowing what is an absolute respons, the phase could be turned several rounds, how could we tell. It is also so that what we want from the cartridge is a flat response, this is independant of engine.
gusten

 

[guiller]

If we subjectively believe one cartridge is very good, we must look elsewhere than the engine for the understanding of why.

I don´t think one needs to understand everything one uses, in particular when complexity comes in. These issues could ruin your day, put you in a bad mood (because you don´t understand everything and you arrive to contradictions, etc) and it´s better to favor the pleasure of enjoying the faithful reproduction of music. In my case, I delight myself listening to classical music (no electronics involved in the production of sound) and inviting performing musicians to listen to music at my home. Presumably they know better than me how their instruments sound. In the case of my latest cart purchase (a Benz Micro Ace LOMC), all of these people agreed in that the sound they were listening through my system was closer to the actual sound of their instruments. I also think so and would, for an eventual upgrade when time comes for a replacement, to consider a better model of the same brand with the same LOMC profile. This is just a practical tactics applied to this game, keeping in mind my enjoyment and pleasure above all.