MC-MM-MI CARTRIDGES . DO YOU KNOW WHICH HAS BETTER QUALITY PERFORMANCE? REALLY?


Dear friends:The main subject of this thread is start a dialogue to find out the way we almost all think or be sure about the thread question :  " true " answer.

 

Many years ago I started the long Agon MM thread where several audiophiles/Agoners and from other audio net forums participated to confirm or to discover the MM/MI/IM/MF/HOMC world and many of us, me including, was and still are" surprised for what we found out in that " new " cartridge world that as today is dominated by the LOMC cartridges.

 

Through that long thread I posted several times the superiority of the MM/types of cartridges over the LOMC ones even that I owned top LOMC cartridge samples to compare with and I remember very clearly that I posted that the MM and the like cartridges had lower distortion levels and better frequency range quality performance than the LOMC cartridges.

 

In those times j.carr ( Lyra designer ) was very active in Agon and in that thread  I remember that he was truly emphatic  posting that my MM conclusion was not  true due that things on distortion cartridge levels in reality is the other way around: LOMC has lower distortion levels.

 

Well, he is not only a LOMC cartridge designer but an expert audiophile/MUSIC lover with a long long and diverse first hand experiences listening cartridges in top TT, top tonearms and top phono stages and listening not only LOMC cartridges but almost any kind of cartridges in his and other top room/systems.

 

I never touched again that subject in that thread and years or months latter the MM thread I started again to listening LOMC cartridges where my room/system overall was up-graded/dated to way superior quality performance levels than in the past and I posted somewhere that j.carr was just rigth: LOMC design were and are superior to the other MM type cartridges been vintage or today models.

 

I'm a MUSIC lover and I'm not " married " with any kind of audio items or audio technologies I'm married just with MUSIC and what can gives me the maximum enjoyment of that ( every kind )  MUSIC, even I'm not married with any of my opinions/ideas/specific way of thinking. Yes, I try hard to stay " always " UNBIASED other than MUSIC.

 

So, till today I followed listening to almost every kind of cartridges ( including field coil design. ) with almost every kind of tonearms and TTs and in the last 2 years my room/system quality performance levels were and is improved by several " stages " that permits me better MUSIC audio items judgements and different enjoyment levels in my system and other audio systems. Yes, I still usemy test audio items full comparison proccess using almost the same LP tracks every time and as always my true sound reference is Live MUSIC not other sound system reproduction.

 

I know that the main thread subject is way complicated and complex to achieve an unanimous conclusions due that exist a lot of inherent differences/advantages/unadvantages in cartridges even coming from the same manufacturer.

 

We all know that when we talk of a cartridge we are in reality talking of its cantilever buil material, stylus shape, tonearm used/TT, compliance, phono stage and the like and my " desire " is that we could concentrate in the cartridges  as an " isolated " audio item and that  any of our opinions when be posible  stay in the premise: " everything the same ".

 

My take here is to learn from all of you and that all of us try to learn in between each to other and not who is the winner but at the " end " every one of us will be a winner.

 

So, your posts are all truly appreciated and is a thread where any one can participates even if today is not any more his analog alternative or is a newcomer or heavily experienced gentleman. Be my guest and thank's in advance.

 

Regards and ENJOY THE MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas

The best explanation came from J. Peter Moncreiff (IIRC) who said that moving magnet/moving iron cartirdges impart a fuzziness to the instruments that is missing from a moving coil.  The effect is subtle, but noticeable as an overall cleaner, more transparent sound.

How can fuzziness improve fidelity to the real? Furthermore any quality “imparted” by the cartridge is per se a distortion. Nevertheless, if you put a gun to my head, I’d say I prefer MI. I don’t say it too loudly because I’ve never heard a $10K+ LOMC in my home systems.

I've used LOMC, HOMC, MM and MI.  All can sound great, but for my money given the suitable supporting equipment, LOMC is where it's at IMHO.  But if you're going to put it through a subpar phono stage, you're defeating the purpose and probably better off with MM or a HO MC or MI.

I believe I am at a place in life where the Cart' no longer really matters. 

Historically, I have been through MM, HOMC and LOMC.

I believe I have heard enough Cart' Types to come to a point in time, where I was convinced LOMC was the most desirable option to be maintained in use. Especially when used with Phono Amplification Support, that allows the Cart' design to work at its most attractive as an audible impression.

Today and many years on, I am certain, the ears are lesser in their hearing range, so a alternative and more affordable Cart' type should suffice for my basic needs. I have no interest in pretending my most expensive Cart's Types are making myself hear more frequency range than I can actually hear.

Approx' 8 years passed at a hearing test, I made it known about my investments in audio and my interest in the hearing test. The nurse said after, I was getting a good return on my investments. I take it I was very simply informed my being able to detect the audible frequency range was reasonably accurate?

Now I am getting close to being 60 Years of Age, I see no reason why the Stored MM's, HOMC and Ceramic Cart' that have all at some time very much hit the right note with me, should remain stored. It is time to get them out and attached to some of the Head Shells stored away as well. These models no longer need to be hidden from the main system. 

As for knowing which is better as a performance? I don't see myself taking the time to be analytical, as along as the presentation of any design is able to listened to for extended periods of time without desiring a change to be put in place, then for me this is the win, as it is a win with all assessments of audio equipment I undertake where devices in use are desirable to be maintained. 

It would be off interest if contributors stated an approximate age, as the younger ear as is the younger eye, a little more reliable with being accurate.

   

But Pindac, you did not mention MI (Moving Iron) types.  Do you own one? Have you heard one in a familiar system? If you are a mere 60 years old, do not sell your ears short. Unless you have been exposed to very loud noises due to occupation or rock concert going or have had a disease that causes degeneration of hearing acuity, you should still be fine.