Why choose LOMC cartridges?
- Thread starter Multiplex
- Start date
To understand all the differences requires a primer in cartridge technology....
Some of the simple basics
1) The needle - the finer the side radius the more detail is extracted, larger side radius' suffer from pinch - where the corrugations of the groove are too close together for the "fatter" styli to follow the wall properly.
Unfortunately smaller side radius means smaller contact patch with higher pressure per surface area, and therefore higher wear to both stylus and record.
The wider major radius needles also extend the contact patch into a vertical contact line - reducing wear.
So finer side radius is better and larger major radius is better - the two need to be present together - which is what we find on HE's, Shibata's and other line contact design needles.
This is not a differentiator between generator types as all types of needles are available on all types of generators.
2) Cantilever
This is the primary key determinant of cartridge performance.
The cantilever effective mass will determine its resonance frequency.
At the resonant frequency there will be a substantial amplitude boost, which fades away in a bell shaped curve extending two octaves on either side of the resonance frequency.
Undamped this can be as high as 20db (HUGE!)
On more basic (read heavier!) cantilevers this resonance can be as low as 10kHz - and therefore affecting frequencies as low as 2.5khz - the midrange as well as extending up to 40kHz.
Also the mass of the cantilever defines how well it is able to respond to sudden changes from the groove - ie dynamics - heavy cantilevers have too much inertia and therefore react slowly.
Mass is not limited to the cantilever but includes all parts of the mechanical moving system (including coils for MC, magnets for MM, iron for MI) - as well as suspension components.
BUT the cantilever itself is the main part of this mass.
The very best cantilevers move that resonance out 2 octaves or higher beyond the audio zone (ie: above 80kHz) - unfortunately cantilevers of this type have not been made since the 90's. (only exception that I know of is the Dynavector Karat)
As a compromise solution one can put the resonance as high as possible given currently available cantilever materials and geometry, and accept a rising top end as a compromise.
High quality cartridges today typically have the resonance in the high 20's - 28kHz is not unusual - this impllies a rising high end starting from 7kHz.
3) Suspension Damping
Damping is critical to performance, low frequency damping is necessary to control the resonance that happens due to the interaction of stylus compliance and the arm mass - if uncontrolled this resonance can lead to mistracking.
At high frequencies a perfect ultra light cantilever would require no damping - and that is the ideal (as damping also affects dynamics negatively)
BUT if you have an excessive rise in amplitude due to cantilever resonance, high frequency damping can be used to reduce that amplitude (damp it).
The greater the amplitude (or the lower the frequency) that the damping is needed for, the more damping is applied, and the greater the negative influence of that damping.
The 80's Ortophase work done by Ortofon with a panel of "Golden Eared" listeners, showed undamped to be preferred, but the colouration introduced by the amplitude rise was too great.
So Ortofon (and many other designers) compromised by using as light a cantilever as viable combined with light damping.
As the cantilever gets heavier the damping required also increases.
A cartridge with a heavy cantilever can be configured through damping to have a very flat frequency response - that does not mean it will sound as good as a cartridge with non flat frequency response (in moderation) and lower damping.
4) Cantilever flex/rigidity
In a perfect cartridge the cantilever should be totally inflexible and pass on 100% of the signal to the generator.
Nice pipe dream!
Cantilevers flex - this leads to signal losses in the frequencies at which it flexes, the lost energy is then released as harmonic distortion.
Different materials (and geometries) flex at differing frequencies, and release the energy in a different mix of harmonics.
Losses can be as high as 2 or 3db and tend to be in the 2kHz to 10kHz range.
Metal cantilevers tend to have relatively benign harmonics, Carbon fibre is rarely used, and some have mentioned that it may be that it does not sound as good due to its harmonics being more heavily weighted towards the uneven rather than the nicer sounding even harmonics.
DIamong and Sapphire/Ruby are he most rigid option currently available, and their "sound" seems to be more neutral and less warm than the metal cantilevers (differing harmonic structure compared to Boron / beryllium)
By design, many cartridges compensate for the flex losse by overlapping the resonance rise onto the flex loss area... the flex loss reduces the total rise - keeping things flat through the midrange (without counting the additional harmonics)
More later...
Some of the simple basics
1) The needle - the finer the side radius the more detail is extracted, larger side radius' suffer from pinch - where the corrugations of the groove are too close together for the "fatter" styli to follow the wall properly.
Unfortunately smaller side radius means smaller contact patch with higher pressure per surface area, and therefore higher wear to both stylus and record.
The wider major radius needles also extend the contact patch into a vertical contact line - reducing wear.
So finer side radius is better and larger major radius is better - the two need to be present together - which is what we find on HE's, Shibata's and other line contact design needles.
This is not a differentiator between generator types as all types of needles are available on all types of generators.
2) Cantilever
This is the primary key determinant of cartridge performance.
The cantilever effective mass will determine its resonance frequency.
At the resonant frequency there will be a substantial amplitude boost, which fades away in a bell shaped curve extending two octaves on either side of the resonance frequency.
Undamped this can be as high as 20db (HUGE!)
On more basic (read heavier!) cantilevers this resonance can be as low as 10kHz - and therefore affecting frequencies as low as 2.5khz - the midrange as well as extending up to 40kHz.
Also the mass of the cantilever defines how well it is able to respond to sudden changes from the groove - ie dynamics - heavy cantilevers have too much inertia and therefore react slowly.
Mass is not limited to the cantilever but includes all parts of the mechanical moving system (including coils for MC, magnets for MM, iron for MI) - as well as suspension components.
BUT the cantilever itself is the main part of this mass.
The very best cantilevers move that resonance out 2 octaves or higher beyond the audio zone (ie: above 80kHz) - unfortunately cantilevers of this type have not been made since the 90's. (only exception that I know of is the Dynavector Karat)
As a compromise solution one can put the resonance as high as possible given currently available cantilever materials and geometry, and accept a rising top end as a compromise.
High quality cartridges today typically have the resonance in the high 20's - 28kHz is not unusual - this impllies a rising high end starting from 7kHz.
3) Suspension Damping
Damping is critical to performance, low frequency damping is necessary to control the resonance that happens due to the interaction of stylus compliance and the arm mass - if uncontrolled this resonance can lead to mistracking.
At high frequencies a perfect ultra light cantilever would require no damping - and that is the ideal (as damping also affects dynamics negatively)
BUT if you have an excessive rise in amplitude due to cantilever resonance, high frequency damping can be used to reduce that amplitude (damp it).
The greater the amplitude (or the lower the frequency) that the damping is needed for, the more damping is applied, and the greater the negative influence of that damping.
The 80's Ortophase work done by Ortofon with a panel of "Golden Eared" listeners, showed undamped to be preferred, but the colouration introduced by the amplitude rise was too great.
So Ortofon (and many other designers) compromised by using as light a cantilever as viable combined with light damping.
As the cantilever gets heavier the damping required also increases.
A cartridge with a heavy cantilever can be configured through damping to have a very flat frequency response - that does not mean it will sound as good as a cartridge with non flat frequency response (in moderation) and lower damping.
4) Cantilever flex/rigidity
In a perfect cartridge the cantilever should be totally inflexible and pass on 100% of the signal to the generator.
Nice pipe dream!
Cantilevers flex - this leads to signal losses in the frequencies at which it flexes, the lost energy is then released as harmonic distortion.
Different materials (and geometries) flex at differing frequencies, and release the energy in a different mix of harmonics.
Losses can be as high as 2 or 3db and tend to be in the 2kHz to 10kHz range.
Metal cantilevers tend to have relatively benign harmonics, Carbon fibre is rarely used, and some have mentioned that it may be that it does not sound as good due to its harmonics being more heavily weighted towards the uneven rather than the nicer sounding even harmonics.
DIamong and Sapphire/Ruby are he most rigid option currently available, and their "sound" seems to be more neutral and less warm than the metal cantilevers (differing harmonic structure compared to Boron / beryllium)
By design, many cartridges compensate for the flex losse by overlapping the resonance rise onto the flex loss area... the flex loss reduces the total rise - keeping things flat through the midrange (without counting the additional harmonics)
More later...
luckydog
Canis inquirit
Hmmm, as you know David, I'd dispute much of your interesting post, but this is not the time or place to discuss because I think it would go off topic PDQ ! Even at face value though, such issues apply equally to LOMC as MM, it seems.
An on-topic comment I'd make is perhaps inertia/mass of LOMC armature might be significant in affecting self-resonance of the cantilever. Perhaps making LOMC generally more difficult to obtain a resonant f outside the audio band. And thus require more suspension damping to control, hence why LOMC tends to be associated with lower compliance suspensions ? Puzzling to explain why otherwise, I think. Just my opinion though.
awprint:Continuing...
5) Magnetic system / generator
Ok I am limiting this to magnetic cartridges, we will skip ceramics, strain gauge and even the Decca London types...
This higher the intensity of the magnetic field and the associated currents, the higher the likelihood of eddy currents and hysteresis kicking in.
There are ways of minimising this in the poles of MM/MI cartridges by using special materials and/or laminated construction (slit poles for the Ortofon VMS system) - but it still happens.
The effect is noticeable as an amplitude loss starting at around 2kHz - I am not sure of whether it increases continuously or wether it happens only over a limited frequency range (I suspect the former).
It coincides with the flex frequencies and increases the midrange trough.
If you run the same exact needle (D7500) in a low output generator body (XLZ7500) and in a high output body (XSP3003) it is noticeable that the midrange trough is reduced by around 2db - there is still a midrange trough but it is now of 1db instead of the previous 3db trough - indicating that magnetics are accounting for (at least) 2db of that trough.
This is an area where low output designs have an advantage over high output designs. This is regardless of whether they are MM/MI or MC.
Generator moving mass - this one is really a furfy / red herring. There is a myth that MC's have lower moving mass than MM/MI's.
It is true that the very very lowest moving mass designs ever made have been MC's. But in the vast majority (like 99.999%) the actual topology is irrelevant the best MM's have comparably low effective mass to the best MC's (at substantially lower cost!).
The legendary low effective mass cartridges prominently include the Technics MM designs.
It is worth noting that almost all the top MM/MI designs have historically had lower output than their more mainstream peers... 1.5mV to 2.5mV output being the norm rather than the more common 4 to 5mV.
The very low output Stantering cartridges appear to be an interesting anomaly showing the advantages of a LOMC magnetically speaking, in a MM design.
Of further note, air core MC designs have substantially lower output, but also another step of reduced magnetic distortion is achieved - these are usually the lowest output MC's.
6) Gain / amplification of the signal
Without getting too far into this aspect, the higher the gain required the higher the distortions of various types introduced by the amplification stages (including transformers if SUT's are part of the picture). Noise is also introduced by the phono stage, and again the higher the gain the higher the noise.
It is MUCH more difficult / expensive to achieve similar noise and distortion results with 20 to 30db additional gain.
7) Loading
High Inductance cartridges, can have their frequency response adjusted by the designer through the use of appropriately matched inductance, along with resistive and capacitive loading - which amounts to equalisation.
This can be used to tame the high end rise generated by the cantilever resonance, without having to apply damping along with its dynamic constraints.
Low inductance cartridges do not have this option - and the cantilever response is therefore "exposed" in the raw, with no means of controlling the resonant rise other than damping.
Loading in MC's is related to output current (possible magnetic effects) as well as ultra high frequency electrical resonances that can destabilise the phono stage electronics - loading is used to damp the UHF resonance, allowing the phono stage to do its work better. (differing phono stage designs therefore leads to differing results with resistive loading in MC's)
Conclusion - if you want to eke out the absolute maximum out of the medium, that can possibly be achieved, your first priority is the effective moving mass - in other words cantilever. (order of magnitude of improvements 10db to 20db)
Once you have the lowest possible moving mass, then you want that attached to a low output generator to minimise magnetic problems, and you want that in turn amplified by an appropriately excellent phono stage.
Yep there are a couple of cartridges that were made during the golden age that meet these criteria. (including both MM and MC types)
There are none made today that meet these criteria.
If you look at golden age peak technology, there were very very fine low mass hollow cantilevers made of Boron or Sapphire/Ruby, maintaining extremely low mass with excellent rigidity.
Apparently the market today is too small to support the manufacturing of these exceptional cantilevers....
So now, given what is available today, it is always going to be a question of compromises... swings and roundabouts - you cannot have it all!
There are a few left field cartridges out there that may not suffer some of these limitations (but may have other limitations of their own!) - Strain Gauge, and the Decca London family are particularly interesting.
The Dynavector Karat design is interesting in that it achieves super low effective mass by making the cantilever super short (1.7mm)... it is also a low output MC design, so has magnetic benefits too.
Anyway those are my many 2 bits worth...
I hear that the designers of top flight cartridges are still out there hoping to find a supplier of boron tube cantilevers.... perhaps if enough of us want them and are willing to pay the price, we might see a resurrection of true top end performers of this type!
bye for now
David
5) Magnetic system / generator
Ok I am limiting this to magnetic cartridges, we will skip ceramics, strain gauge and even the Decca London types...
This higher the intensity of the magnetic field and the associated currents, the higher the likelihood of eddy currents and hysteresis kicking in.
There are ways of minimising this in the poles of MM/MI cartridges by using special materials and/or laminated construction (slit poles for the Ortofon VMS system) - but it still happens.
The effect is noticeable as an amplitude loss starting at around 2kHz - I am not sure of whether it increases continuously or wether it happens only over a limited frequency range (I suspect the former).
It coincides with the flex frequencies and increases the midrange trough.
If you run the same exact needle (D7500) in a low output generator body (XLZ7500) and in a high output body (XSP3003) it is noticeable that the midrange trough is reduced by around 2db - there is still a midrange trough but it is now of 1db instead of the previous 3db trough - indicating that magnetics are accounting for (at least) 2db of that trough.
This is an area where low output designs have an advantage over high output designs. This is regardless of whether they are MM/MI or MC.
Generator moving mass - this one is really a furfy / red herring. There is a myth that MC's have lower moving mass than MM/MI's.
It is true that the very very lowest moving mass designs ever made have been MC's. But in the vast majority (like 99.999%) the actual topology is irrelevant the best MM's have comparably low effective mass to the best MC's (at substantially lower cost!).
The legendary low effective mass cartridges prominently include the Technics MM designs.
It is worth noting that almost all the top MM/MI designs have historically had lower output than their more mainstream peers... 1.5mV to 2.5mV output being the norm rather than the more common 4 to 5mV.
The very low output Stantering cartridges appear to be an interesting anomaly showing the advantages of a LOMC magnetically speaking, in a MM design.
Of further note, air core MC designs have substantially lower output, but also another step of reduced magnetic distortion is achieved - these are usually the lowest output MC's.
6) Gain / amplification of the signal
Without getting too far into this aspect, the higher the gain required the higher the distortions of various types introduced by the amplification stages (including transformers if SUT's are part of the picture). Noise is also introduced by the phono stage, and again the higher the gain the higher the noise.
It is MUCH more difficult / expensive to achieve similar noise and distortion results with 20 to 30db additional gain.
7) Loading
High Inductance cartridges, can have their frequency response adjusted by the designer through the use of appropriately matched inductance, along with resistive and capacitive loading - which amounts to equalisation.
This can be used to tame the high end rise generated by the cantilever resonance, without having to apply damping along with its dynamic constraints.
Low inductance cartridges do not have this option - and the cantilever response is therefore "exposed" in the raw, with no means of controlling the resonant rise other than damping.
Loading in MC's is related to output current (possible magnetic effects) as well as ultra high frequency electrical resonances that can destabilise the phono stage electronics - loading is used to damp the UHF resonance, allowing the phono stage to do its work better. (differing phono stage designs therefore leads to differing results with resistive loading in MC's)
Conclusion - if you want to eke out the absolute maximum out of the medium, that can possibly be achieved, your first priority is the effective moving mass - in other words cantilever. (order of magnitude of improvements 10db to 20db)
Once you have the lowest possible moving mass, then you want that attached to a low output generator to minimise magnetic problems, and you want that in turn amplified by an appropriately excellent phono stage.
Yep there are a couple of cartridges that were made during the golden age that meet these criteria. (including both MM and MC types)
There are none made today that meet these criteria.
If you look at golden age peak technology, there were very very fine low mass hollow cantilevers made of Boron or Sapphire/Ruby, maintaining extremely low mass with excellent rigidity.
Apparently the market today is too small to support the manufacturing of these exceptional cantilevers....
So now, given what is available today, it is always going to be a question of compromises... swings and roundabouts - you cannot have it all!
There are a few left field cartridges out there that may not suffer some of these limitations (but may have other limitations of their own!) - Strain Gauge, and the Decca London family are particularly interesting.
The Dynavector Karat design is interesting in that it achieves super low effective mass by making the cantilever super short (1.7mm)... it is also a low output MC design, so has magnetic benefits too.
Anyway those are my many 2 bits worth...
I hear that the designers of top flight cartridges are still out there hoping to find a supplier of boron tube cantilevers.... perhaps if enough of us want them and are willing to pay the price, we might see a resurrection of true top end performers of this type!
bye for now
David
Here is my perspective......I have a DL 103 S which has been updated by Soundsmith. I also have a Sumiko Blue point special. In detail both cartridges best my MMs easily or my MIs.
However, when I want to hear musicality in my recordings.....I run a Grado Gold with an MCZ stylus loaded at about 10 K. To my ears the Grado has a musical tone that MY mc carts can't even touch.
I think you have to have a mixture of MMs, MIs, and MCs......to get the best of all
Last edited:
Hi LD,Hmmm, as you know David, I'd dispute much of your interesting post, but this is not the time or place to discuss because I think it would go off topic PDQ ! Even at face value though, such issues apply equally to LOMC as MM, it seems.
An on-topic comment I'd make is perhaps inertia/mass of LOMC armature might be significant in affecting self-resonance of the cantilever. Perhaps making LOMC generally more difficult to obtain a resonant f outside the audio band. And thus require more suspension damping to control, hence why LOMC tends to be associated with lower compliance suspensions ? Puzzling to explain why otherwise, I think. Just my opinion though.
had a feeling you would pop up on this one.... but yes my point is that the issues are common to both types.
And the benefits of LO appear to accrue to LOMM (as exemplified by my XLZ7500) - however that is a little academic as no one is making LOMM's today... (except Grado come to think of it...) so advantage MC.
But the cantilever issue is several orders of magnitude greater than the magnetic system issues....
So given the choice between a low mass highly rigid cantilever and a LO generating system, I would recommend the better cantilever.
LO is (IMO) a secondary item providing an additional boost to performance, but not the key thing.
Problem is people who simplify things down to MC vs MM - and then choose a basic relatively heavy effective mass MC in preference to an advanced low effective mass MM.... which definitely will not provide an objective improvement.
And of course LO is always more expensive, as the required gain stages add cost.
For most people most of the time, I think MM is the sensible choice.
bye for now
David
The Grado's are interesting and different.
They an almost undamped cantilever (relative to most MM's and MC's) in terms of the cantilever motion relative to the magnetic generator, but the cantilever itself is damped which might damp some of the flex harmonics?
The MCZ should be lower mass than the standar Gold stylus, and is I believe a pseudo line contact "twin tip" design.
I think what people hear in the Grado's is all the benefits of the undamped cantilever along with the colouration due to low damping...
A fairly extreme compromise in one direction but a valid one never the less....
(and if you can find the right older signature body you can get it with a lower output generator... 1.5mV)
Multiplex
Appease my earhole.
Right now, I have nothing that would rate with a $1000 MC cartridge, so I have my work cut out for me, should I ever decide to take that route. At this time, I am using an ERA 1000 TT with a very low mass tonearm, perfect for my high-compliance ADC cart. I would also need a preamp. My current preamp is a NAD 1020, MM only. I'm not making a move any time soon... I'm just educating myself so I'll be ready when I do.
Multiplex
Appease my earhole.
Interesting stuff, dlaloum... I was wondering a few of these things myself... Like, how could an MC cartridge possibly have lower mass than an MI, like my ADC. Those have a tiny tapered cantilever, with only a small sleeve of metal at one end to conduct the magnetism. I can't imaging possibly making an MC generator that is any lower mass. It is nude with a line-contact (ish) tip, as is my B&O cartridge. That one is line contact with a very slender sapphire cantilever. Also very low mass, in both cantilever and generator. Yet, LOMCs are still generally favored, even though their design seems as though it *should* be more cumbersome and less practical... So you're saying it has more to do with the electrical properties of the low output generator? Interesting...
I ride the cusp between higher quality MI (Grado Gold/8MZ), MM (Shure 15 IV), and lower end MC (Denon 103r, older Sony). After taking the plunge for decent step up devices, yes, had to get two, I find I listen to the MC carts almost exclusively.This was reinforced when one of my tables went down and I listened to the Grado/8mz combo for a week. It sounded great, but there was a wow moment going back to the Denon. I guess it was equal musicality with greater detail, and the Denon is not as detailed as most MC carts. In my current recently retired status, I,ll be hard pressed to go up the chain, as I'm on a self imposed sell something to get something mode, but you never know.
It is certainly one of those take the plunge and try it situations.
It is certainly one of those take the plunge and try it situations.
SoundsAlike
Super Member
I'm betting price influences what we perceive as better. If moving magnets were $1,000 and moving coils were under $100 we would all be praising the more expensive option.
I had a Denon DL-103 and denon step-up transformer and I did not fall in love with it. My old moving iron, ortofon m15e super just had superior stereo separation and just as much mid range punch as the denon DL-103.
I had a Denon DL-103 and denon step-up transformer and I did not fall in love with it. My old moving iron, ortofon m15e super just had superior stereo separation and just as much mid range punch as the denon DL-103.
Mister Pig
Pigamus Maximus
These debates of LOMC and MI/MM cartridges go back and forth, and forth and back every year on AK. Of course like any topic there are people on both sides of the fence, and rarely does anything change with any of these "camps". And the stereotypes of what each cartridge style does is always repeated, and rarely is it ever acknowledged that some of these ideas have been put to rest.
The idea that moving coil cartridges are low compliance is one of them, as there are very very few current low compliance cartridges being sold today. I would suspect that 95% of MC cartridges are medium compliance, and that number is probably low. Although I do know of a few. Conversely MM/MI cartridges these days are of medium compliance, and the great vintage MM/MI that sometimes get referenced here can often be high compliance, and coming from a different era of audio. Yet they are not the norm anymore of what is available in current production cartridges.
The idea that diamonds are only good for a 1000 hours max is another one, that is often reported by a statement made by Ortofon. On the other hand manufacturers like Van Den Hul spec their diamonds at 3000 hours plus. So many variables come into this equation, such as vinyl condition, vinyl cleanliness, cartridge alignment, tone arm quality, stylus cleanliness and so on and so forth. Even if the diamond does deteriorate and lose some of its overall performance, I suspect the top tier ones will be far more capable of detail retrieval versus a standard 2 by 7 elliptical. Many owners of cartridges with microridge stylus for instance report usage of years, and I would suspect way past the 1000 hour mark...with no audible problems.
Many of the cartridges that are referenced as the great MM/MI came from a time of high compliance designs. So the tone arm requirements for such cartridges are fundamentally different than what even a modern MC needs. So the comparison of cartridges, and which is "better" is a difficult task to achieve. Yes dampening troughs can be used to get them close in a certain arm, but I am of the opinion that dampening in itself squashes a bit of life and detail out of a cartridge. In all the arms I have heard, the better arms often do not benefit from dampening, although I do admit that uni-pivots can at the pivot point. At least the one I use does. As usual there is no universal truth, that all of something is always right. But what high compliance MM and MC cartridges need to be their best is fundamentally different. Although if you are comparing modern MM/MI and modern MC....you may very well be able to use the same kind of arm. So an Ortofon Black may be fairly compared to a Dynavector 17D3.
Which of course brings us to phono stages. What is needed for MC and MM/MI cartridges are different, and there seem to be very few phono stages or sections that are equally matched in the MM and MC portions. Of course a step up transformer can be used on a MM phono stage, and that could be a fair way of performing an evaluation, but they limit you on which MC cartridges can be used since it has to electrically match the electrical parameters of the cartridge.
As I said, these camps never seem to change their minds. I have tried a few MM/MI cartridges and I really am not bowled over by them. I have had Goldring 1042, AT 155LC, Ortofon OM 40, Grado Master and Reference original series, and a Stanton, ADC,and a few other miscellaneous ones. Never cared for a single one of them...although the AT and Goldring were the ones I liked best. Now on the other hand I have read of quite a few AK'ers who buy their first MC, and go wow that is what I have been missing? Now I know that is not everyone, and that people can enjoy both MC and MM cartridges in their various systems...as AK'ers often have more than one system. But it seems when they buy a couple of steps up from the basic MC cartridge, like the AT OC 9 II, or the Denon 301 II or 304II, they revaluate what they know. With that being said I understand there are certain aspects of MM/MI that are alluring, there is a continuity and flow to the sound that is excellent. So I get why people prefer MM/MI and I don't think they are misguided. But when you tally up the scorecard at the end of the day MC does it for me.
Now this idea that price influences what we hear, and that our expectations override what your ears tell you. If that is the case in terms of cartridges, which are as distinct an audio component as there is.....well you better find another hobby because it means you can't hear and are gullible. That doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on MM/MI or MC.
Interesting thoughts on the hollow cantilver tubes, and yes it probably is preferable to have them. But that time is gone, and it is only one aspect of cartridge design. I have listened to vintage MC and MM and modern MC cartridges, and have to honestly say that as a whole the modern cartridge is a better performer. The current designers, with access to the knowledge and experience of those who came before, with better test equipment, with computer modeling, with improved materials, and with more advanced manufacturing techniques simply build a better cartridge. The cantilever is only one part of the design, and it is not like they do not balance the circuit and design to account for the characteristics of the cantilever. So while this point is interesting in a theoretical aspect, I would expect the designer of a $1000 or 2,000+ cartridge to be able to incorporate these aspects into the final design. Phono cartridges today are remarkable, and being able to buy something like an AT OC 9 III for $500 from LP Gear is a awesome thing, as you get a cartridge that is on par with many an expensive LOMC from 80's, and at a far more affordable cost. And in reality, probably smoke more than a few highly regarded ones from that time period.
Now this is just the opinion of a simple pig who enjoys spinning vinyl. I can only work from my experiences, and of what I have personally heard. Now not everyone agrees with pigs in general, and actually most of you would prefer to cover me in BBQ sauce, so I tend to not invite people over to hear my analog rig. But I have a decent piece of analog gear or two, and honestly feel that my experiences are not purposely skewed or that I have an agenda. It is just what I have heard in the context of my system. Agree or not, that is ok...its just this pigs perspective.
Regards
Mister Pig
The idea that moving coil cartridges are low compliance is one of them, as there are very very few current low compliance cartridges being sold today. I would suspect that 95% of MC cartridges are medium compliance, and that number is probably low. Although I do know of a few. Conversely MM/MI cartridges these days are of medium compliance, and the great vintage MM/MI that sometimes get referenced here can often be high compliance, and coming from a different era of audio. Yet they are not the norm anymore of what is available in current production cartridges.
The idea that diamonds are only good for a 1000 hours max is another one, that is often reported by a statement made by Ortofon. On the other hand manufacturers like Van Den Hul spec their diamonds at 3000 hours plus. So many variables come into this equation, such as vinyl condition, vinyl cleanliness, cartridge alignment, tone arm quality, stylus cleanliness and so on and so forth. Even if the diamond does deteriorate and lose some of its overall performance, I suspect the top tier ones will be far more capable of detail retrieval versus a standard 2 by 7 elliptical. Many owners of cartridges with microridge stylus for instance report usage of years, and I would suspect way past the 1000 hour mark...with no audible problems.
Many of the cartridges that are referenced as the great MM/MI came from a time of high compliance designs. So the tone arm requirements for such cartridges are fundamentally different than what even a modern MC needs. So the comparison of cartridges, and which is "better" is a difficult task to achieve. Yes dampening troughs can be used to get them close in a certain arm, but I am of the opinion that dampening in itself squashes a bit of life and detail out of a cartridge. In all the arms I have heard, the better arms often do not benefit from dampening, although I do admit that uni-pivots can at the pivot point. At least the one I use does. As usual there is no universal truth, that all of something is always right. But what high compliance MM and MC cartridges need to be their best is fundamentally different. Although if you are comparing modern MM/MI and modern MC....you may very well be able to use the same kind of arm. So an Ortofon Black may be fairly compared to a Dynavector 17D3.
Which of course brings us to phono stages. What is needed for MC and MM/MI cartridges are different, and there seem to be very few phono stages or sections that are equally matched in the MM and MC portions. Of course a step up transformer can be used on a MM phono stage, and that could be a fair way of performing an evaluation, but they limit you on which MC cartridges can be used since it has to electrically match the electrical parameters of the cartridge.
As I said, these camps never seem to change their minds. I have tried a few MM/MI cartridges and I really am not bowled over by them. I have had Goldring 1042, AT 155LC, Ortofon OM 40, Grado Master and Reference original series, and a Stanton, ADC,and a few other miscellaneous ones. Never cared for a single one of them...although the AT and Goldring were the ones I liked best. Now on the other hand I have read of quite a few AK'ers who buy their first MC, and go wow that is what I have been missing? Now I know that is not everyone, and that people can enjoy both MC and MM cartridges in their various systems...as AK'ers often have more than one system. But it seems when they buy a couple of steps up from the basic MC cartridge, like the AT OC 9 II, or the Denon 301 II or 304II, they revaluate what they know. With that being said I understand there are certain aspects of MM/MI that are alluring, there is a continuity and flow to the sound that is excellent. So I get why people prefer MM/MI and I don't think they are misguided. But when you tally up the scorecard at the end of the day MC does it for me.
Now this idea that price influences what we hear, and that our expectations override what your ears tell you. If that is the case in terms of cartridges, which are as distinct an audio component as there is.....well you better find another hobby because it means you can't hear and are gullible. That doesn't matter what side of the fence you are on MM/MI or MC.
Interesting thoughts on the hollow cantilver tubes, and yes it probably is preferable to have them. But that time is gone, and it is only one aspect of cartridge design. I have listened to vintage MC and MM and modern MC cartridges, and have to honestly say that as a whole the modern cartridge is a better performer. The current designers, with access to the knowledge and experience of those who came before, with better test equipment, with computer modeling, with improved materials, and with more advanced manufacturing techniques simply build a better cartridge. The cantilever is only one part of the design, and it is not like they do not balance the circuit and design to account for the characteristics of the cantilever. So while this point is interesting in a theoretical aspect, I would expect the designer of a $1000 or 2,000+ cartridge to be able to incorporate these aspects into the final design. Phono cartridges today are remarkable, and being able to buy something like an AT OC 9 III for $500 from LP Gear is a awesome thing, as you get a cartridge that is on par with many an expensive LOMC from 80's, and at a far more affordable cost. And in reality, probably smoke more than a few highly regarded ones from that time period.
Now this is just the opinion of a simple pig who enjoys spinning vinyl. I can only work from my experiences, and of what I have personally heard. Now not everyone agrees with pigs in general, and actually most of you would prefer to cover me in BBQ sauce, so I tend to not invite people over to hear my analog rig. But I have a decent piece of analog gear or two, and honestly feel that my experiences are not purposely skewed or that I have an agenda. It is just what I have heard in the context of my system. Agree or not, that is ok...its just this pigs perspective.
Regards
Mister Pig
Last edited:
thedelihaus
Nocturnal transmissions
I have a small collection of MC carts, and a large collection of mixed MM and MI carts. It took the $1200-up range for me to really appreciate what a MC could offer, but I can still have my toes curled by a bunch of MM/MI carts that cost me a fourth to about half of that.
Not knocking the lower priced MCs- I have a bunch of highly enjoyable HOMCs and under $1k MCs that I really like- at that price, I think the different Audio Technica offerings (AT-33EV, OC-9 series) and some of the Denons are great options, and hopefully the new Ortofon Quintet series will deliver the goods too.
One thing the MCs do different in my experience is increased (some say exaggerated) detail and ambience, or air. To qualify this statement, I've been running a Dynavector Karat and Ortofon Kontrapunkt through an Aragon or Threshold pre-amp. Excellent gear but of course as always, room for improvement.
That said, there are a lot of fun vintage MM/MI carts out there to enjoy, and the vintage Shures are a pleasure for quiet evenings listening to the headphones, and the Ortofon Super 30 for when I want to boogie. These carts, and others from Grace (F9 series), Technics (EPC 100-205 series), Signet (TK-7 & 9s), Stanton (881/981), ADC (XLM/ZLM) and others have a lovely cohesive sound to them.
In fact, a good amount of techs state some of the better MMs are closer to the true sound of the master analogue tape. I forget who used the Ortofon Super OM 30 & 40 to compare their test pressings to the analogue tapes but it was a respected audiophile label. Sony had used Shure's later V15 series, others favored Stanton's 881 and 981, or the Technics EPC-100, or the Audio Technica AT-150, 160, 170 and 180 models.
In fact, here is just one article about it (there are more, for those who want to search out PDFs of older recording industry trade mags):
http://www.regonaudio.com/Stanton881AudioTechnicaATML70.html
What's my long-winded post trying to get across?
Basically, there are excellent MM/MI designs that can bring lots of enjoyment to the table. And perhaps they are more accurate to the analogue tape.
But the better MCs at a certain level shrug off any shortcomings of the lesser entry level MCs to offer the potential of a more exhilarating and "technicolor" (for lack of better term)
listen and seems to excavate and flesh out some increased detail (for better or worse).
And what of the claims by the recording artists that the MMs they use are a closer representation of the analogue master tapes? It very well may be true, but Art Dudley once quipped that accuracy may be what audiophiles aim for, but are rarely pleased or satisfied when they achieve it. Can a bit of exuberance really hurt? I don't think so- in fact I find it makes listening more enjoyable. After all, recordings are inherently flawed as they are mechanically separated from the real thing and we must take into consideration the limits of the recording technology.
For me, most of my listening is done casually and I enjoy the heck out of some great MM/MI designs, but those upper MCs add a dash of zest to a listening session when it's just me, my records, and perhaps a tall cool one, and nothing else.
Not knocking the lower priced MCs- I have a bunch of highly enjoyable HOMCs and under $1k MCs that I really like- at that price, I think the different Audio Technica offerings (AT-33EV, OC-9 series) and some of the Denons are great options, and hopefully the new Ortofon Quintet series will deliver the goods too.
One thing the MCs do different in my experience is increased (some say exaggerated) detail and ambience, or air. To qualify this statement, I've been running a Dynavector Karat and Ortofon Kontrapunkt through an Aragon or Threshold pre-amp. Excellent gear but of course as always, room for improvement.
That said, there are a lot of fun vintage MM/MI carts out there to enjoy, and the vintage Shures are a pleasure for quiet evenings listening to the headphones, and the Ortofon Super 30 for when I want to boogie. These carts, and others from Grace (F9 series), Technics (EPC 100-205 series), Signet (TK-7 & 9s), Stanton (881/981), ADC (XLM/ZLM) and others have a lovely cohesive sound to them.
In fact, a good amount of techs state some of the better MMs are closer to the true sound of the master analogue tape. I forget who used the Ortofon Super OM 30 & 40 to compare their test pressings to the analogue tapes but it was a respected audiophile label. Sony had used Shure's later V15 series, others favored Stanton's 881 and 981, or the Technics EPC-100, or the Audio Technica AT-150, 160, 170 and 180 models.
In fact, here is just one article about it (there are more, for those who want to search out PDFs of older recording industry trade mags):
http://www.regonaudio.com/Stanton881AudioTechnicaATML70.html
What's my long-winded post trying to get across?
Basically, there are excellent MM/MI designs that can bring lots of enjoyment to the table. And perhaps they are more accurate to the analogue tape.
But the better MCs at a certain level shrug off any shortcomings of the lesser entry level MCs to offer the potential of a more exhilarating and "technicolor" (for lack of better term)
listen and seems to excavate and flesh out some increased detail (for better or worse).
And what of the claims by the recording artists that the MMs they use are a closer representation of the analogue master tapes? It very well may be true, but Art Dudley once quipped that accuracy may be what audiophiles aim for, but are rarely pleased or satisfied when they achieve it. Can a bit of exuberance really hurt? I don't think so- in fact I find it makes listening more enjoyable. After all, recordings are inherently flawed as they are mechanically separated from the real thing and we must take into consideration the limits of the recording technology.
For me, most of my listening is done casually and I enjoy the heck out of some great MM/MI designs, but those upper MCs add a dash of zest to a listening session when it's just me, my records, and perhaps a tall cool one, and nothing else.
thedelihaus
Nocturnal transmissions
Hey- I was writing my post as Mr. Pig was writing his- as always, the pig delivers an excellent summarization of it all. Thank you, John, for an excellent contribution to this thread.
I had a Goldring 1042 I picked up for $75 (!!!) with an honest 12-20 hours on it, max. Nice cart indeed, but let a good friend have it- it replaced a $29 Audio Technica cart, and I don't think he's left his house in 6 months, he was so blown away.
I think ancillary equipment is an important factor in this discussion that we may be glossing over. While my system is no slouch, there is always room for growth and improvement, and as an individual moves up the audiophile food chain, with better phono stages and more revealing systems, I think they could benefit more so from the higher-priced carts.
Not saying that a lovely Shelter 901 or upper model Lyra would be a waste on a humble system, but a more resolving system should, in theory (and often in practice), allow more of the potential to show.
I really dig the Ortofon SuperOM30 for it's boogie factor. I would not personally consider it a neutral listen in any of my systems and it is not without it's imperfections, but doesn't impede my listening enjoyment. I like the shure V15s for falling asleep to with headphones on- again perhaps not a neutral cart (depending on model- III, IV, V) but doesn't hinder the experience. Grado Statements are perfect for those easy Sunday mornings with it's engaging midrange and undemanding top and bottom.
The MC Ortofon Kontrapunkt is to me, for hearing every etched detail- perhaps hyper-reality, but it's like licking a rainforest toad and kicking in the doors of perception. Everything is vivid, clear, deep, wide, focused. The Dynavector Karat a precise and lightning quick, snappy listen (with that tiny cantilever). As you stated, probably what the strain gauge fellas coo over. It's a special cart deserving of it's reputation. The Audio Technica AT-33EV a smooth and engaging listen (although not as detailed or expansive in soundstage as the Dynavector or Ortofon).
For me, some of the lesser MCs showed me a glimpse of what was capable, but not enough to sway me from the enjoyment of some of the better MM/MI designs.
Getting into the Audio Technica AT-33EV set the MC bar for me, and it remains a go-to. With the Ortofon Kontrapunkt and the Dynavector, it was another increase, and I have had the good fortune of listening to a $15,000 ClearAudio Goldfinger in a much better system than I have- the magic I felt became less of a flashy, "WOW!" Moment, and more about the subtleties and nuances of the listening experience. With the Goldfinger, it was an extreme neutrality and retrieval of the recorded room's ambience. It was something special and truly reference material.
I had a Goldring 1042 I picked up for $75 (!!!) with an honest 12-20 hours on it, max. Nice cart indeed, but let a good friend have it- it replaced a $29 Audio Technica cart, and I don't think he's left his house in 6 months, he was so blown away.
I think ancillary equipment is an important factor in this discussion that we may be glossing over. While my system is no slouch, there is always room for growth and improvement, and as an individual moves up the audiophile food chain, with better phono stages and more revealing systems, I think they could benefit more so from the higher-priced carts.
Not saying that a lovely Shelter 901 or upper model Lyra would be a waste on a humble system, but a more resolving system should, in theory (and often in practice), allow more of the potential to show.
I really dig the Ortofon SuperOM30 for it's boogie factor. I would not personally consider it a neutral listen in any of my systems and it is not without it's imperfections, but doesn't impede my listening enjoyment. I like the shure V15s for falling asleep to with headphones on- again perhaps not a neutral cart (depending on model- III, IV, V) but doesn't hinder the experience. Grado Statements are perfect for those easy Sunday mornings with it's engaging midrange and undemanding top and bottom.
The MC Ortofon Kontrapunkt is to me, for hearing every etched detail- perhaps hyper-reality, but it's like licking a rainforest toad and kicking in the doors of perception. Everything is vivid, clear, deep, wide, focused. The Dynavector Karat a precise and lightning quick, snappy listen (with that tiny cantilever). As you stated, probably what the strain gauge fellas coo over. It's a special cart deserving of it's reputation. The Audio Technica AT-33EV a smooth and engaging listen (although not as detailed or expansive in soundstage as the Dynavector or Ortofon).
For me, some of the lesser MCs showed me a glimpse of what was capable, but not enough to sway me from the enjoyment of some of the better MM/MI designs.
Getting into the Audio Technica AT-33EV set the MC bar for me, and it remains a go-to. With the Ortofon Kontrapunkt and the Dynavector, it was another increase, and I have had the good fortune of listening to a $15,000 ClearAudio Goldfinger in a much better system than I have- the magic I felt became less of a flashy, "WOW!" Moment, and more about the subtleties and nuances of the listening experience. With the Goldfinger, it was an extreme neutrality and retrieval of the recorded room's ambience. It was something special and truly reference material.
Last edited:
Catcher10
Prog-tastic!
I enjoy both MM/MI and MC carts. Been on a Nagaoka kick for the past few years with nothing but praise, especially on the MP-200.
Right now using the AT OC9ML/II MC and simply loving what I hear, not a huge investment if I was not impressed. The phono stage makes all the difference IMO when going to a MC cartridge...you need the ability to play with different loadings to get the best out of an MC.
Right now using the AT OC9ML/II MC and simply loving what I hear, not a huge investment if I was not impressed. The phono stage makes all the difference IMO when going to a MC cartridge...you need the ability to play with different loadings to get the best out of an MC.
JohnMichael
Super Member
I was surprised to learn that the latest Fanfare3 has 100 ohms internal resistance where the older model has 470 ohms. I wonder if the magic would be lost?
Kingshead
Professor
A moving magnet cartridge (abbreviated MM) is the most common type of phono cartridge. It has two magnets on the end of the stylus (one for each channel), located inside of the cartridge. As the stylus moves, the magnets change their relationship with the coils in the body of the cartridge, generating a small voltage.
The advantages of a moving magnet cartridge are high output, which means it is compatible with any phono input on a stereo component. Many moving magnet cartridges also feature a removable and replaceable stylus. This is important in the event of breakage.
Its disadvantages are that the magnets have higher weight or mass compared to a moving coil cartridge, which means they can't move as quickly in the record groove. This inhibits its ability to track subtle changes within the groove. This is where a moving coil cartridge has performance advantages.
Moving Coil Cartridge
A moving coil cartridge is sort of the opposite of a moving magnet cartridge. Instead of magnets, two small coils are connected to the end of stylus located in the body of the cartridge. The coils are smaller than magnets and weigh much less, giving the stylus more agility when navigating the constantly changing record grooves. In general, a moving coil cartridge traces the grooves better because of its lower mass and provides more detailed and accurate sound quality.
One disadvantage of the moving coil cartridge is that it generates a smaller voltage and requires a secondary preamplifier, sometimes known as a head amp. The head amp increases the voltage enough for a phono input on a stereo component. Some moving coil cartridges have higher output and are compatible with a standard phono input, but its output will be somewhat lower than a moving magnet cartridge.
The stylus is also not user replaceable in a moving coil cartridge and must be replaced at the factory or the entire cartridge discarded if the stylus is broken.
Both types of phono cartridges will provide good performance, but if you want the best, select a moving coil cartridge.
Martin
The advantages of a moving magnet cartridge are high output, which means it is compatible with any phono input on a stereo component. Many moving magnet cartridges also feature a removable and replaceable stylus. This is important in the event of breakage.
Its disadvantages are that the magnets have higher weight or mass compared to a moving coil cartridge, which means they can't move as quickly in the record groove. This inhibits its ability to track subtle changes within the groove. This is where a moving coil cartridge has performance advantages.
Moving Coil Cartridge
A moving coil cartridge is sort of the opposite of a moving magnet cartridge. Instead of magnets, two small coils are connected to the end of stylus located in the body of the cartridge. The coils are smaller than magnets and weigh much less, giving the stylus more agility when navigating the constantly changing record grooves. In general, a moving coil cartridge traces the grooves better because of its lower mass and provides more detailed and accurate sound quality.
One disadvantage of the moving coil cartridge is that it generates a smaller voltage and requires a secondary preamplifier, sometimes known as a head amp. The head amp increases the voltage enough for a phono input on a stereo component. Some moving coil cartridges have higher output and are compatible with a standard phono input, but its output will be somewhat lower than a moving magnet cartridge.
The stylus is also not user replaceable in a moving coil cartridge and must be replaced at the factory or the entire cartridge discarded if the stylus is broken.
Both types of phono cartridges will provide good performance, but if you want the best, select a moving coil cartridge.
Martin
Last edited:
Multiplex
Appease my earhole.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, I'm a little skeptical of the lower moving mass argument. After all, some MMs like Shure for instance, only use one tiny magnet. Then other designs, such as some Stanton's, Grado, ADC, etc., use moving iron... In other words, just moving a small piece of metal through an area of magnetic flux. It seems to me that this would have to be lower in mass than a coil, even a small one. The mass is undoubtedly part of it, but electrical differences must also be a factor for there to be such a notable difference in performance. That, I suppose, is what I find intriguing...
DeeCee
"Music is what we like to play..."
Hmmmm... good question - I assume this is the one with the newly shaped box? I wonder why he decided to make the change and if there are other mods as well?
JohnMichael
Super Member
Yes the Otofon OM20 and ADC XLM mkII that I once owned were both induced magnet cartridges and not moving magnets. The magnets are fixed in place as are the coils and only the cantilever moves between the fixed coils generating a signal.
My Grado Sonata Statement is a low output cartridge that uses the moving iron principle. Instead of a magnet moving they have a piece of iron at the end of the cantilever again with fixed magnet and coils. The moving iron generates signals in the coils while moving in the coils fields.
B&O cartridges also have their microcross at the end of the cantilever. They would also be considered moving iron designs.
Again as several of us has said there are great examples of each type. Decide on your budget and what is important to you as far as sound. One thing I miss about most moving magnet, iron or induced is the ability to change stylus. Only the Satin MC cartridges from years past had replaceable stylus. If you bend the cantilever on an MC cartridge it is new cart time. With the others it is replaceable stylus time.
My Grado Sonata Statement is a low output cartridge that uses the moving iron principle. Instead of a magnet moving they have a piece of iron at the end of the cantilever again with fixed magnet and coils. The moving iron generates signals in the coils while moving in the coils fields.
B&O cartridges also have their microcross at the end of the cantilever. They would also be considered moving iron designs.
Again as several of us has said there are great examples of each type. Decide on your budget and what is important to you as far as sound. One thing I miss about most moving magnet, iron or induced is the ability to change stylus. Only the Satin MC cartridges from years past had replaceable stylus. If you bend the cantilever on an MC cartridge it is new cart time. With the others it is replaceable stylus time.