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

Surely tension/release is a neurological matter rather then one created by a skilled orchestra, a good venue or a fine cartridge? We talk of joyful music, sad music and so on, but we are simply describing the emotions it engenders in our minds, not in the music. It is interesting that we generally agree on the emotions that music causes: it gives a small insight into the way our brains work. One of the admirable qualities about Puccini was that he wrote in emotions as much as in melodies; he had the ability (was it conscious?) to reach straight into one's thalamus and manipulate the emotions. Probably heightened by all the excitement of a live performance, where travelling there, dressing up, the set, the costumes, and finally the music all contribute to the final effect of leaving me weeping.

I want my music reproduction to work at several levels:

—I want the detailed timbres of an intimate venue chamber recital or solo voice reproduced so I can hear them as if I were there, I want to hear how much rosin is on the horsehair

—I want my feet to tap from the musicality of it all, which is simply a physical manifestation of how successfully the music is dominating all other mental processes

—I want that emotional experience

But then, I'm easily satisfied...

Apparently.

You may find this interesting.  Basic, but to the point:

https://www.schoolofcomposition.com/what-is-tension-and-release-in-music/#:~:text='Tension%20and%20release'%20refers%20to,keeps%20the%20music%20moving%20forward.

 

OK I admit that in my sound room there is a piano and a set of drums and a lot of percussion instruments.  Sometimes these must inevitably influence my perception of sound as reproduced from my stereo system.  But, the influence is only subliminal and never due to direct comparison.  It does help me hear if the piano is in tune.  Especially live acoustic jazz recordings sometimes reveal out of tune pianos.  Also, Connie Kay, the great drummer of MJQ, had a bell tree with a very distinctive sound.  I have one of those bell trees and use it to verify that my overall system presentation and tonality are reasonably accurate in the upper midrange and highs. If the bells don't sound right a cartridge could be a no go.  This in my experience happens with cartridges with a rising high frequency response, which is  confirmed on an O-scope.  This is more common than you think and one of factors that led me to favor my Hyperion.

@rauliruegas , good to see you continuing the good fight in the audio wars my friend.  I'm a few days late in discovering this post.

Regarding a "true" answer, I don't believe that will ever be possible.  As you pointed out there are too many variables in playback systems.  But also significant variables in the sources, the recordings we listen to.  Then there is the equally wide variation in personal taste, based upon exposure and experience, plus individual hearing response profiles.

I agree with the importance for calibration of personal audible standards by listening to live performances.  Unfortunately that is challenged by the reduced number of unamplified performances now available.  But here I don't intend to say attending one or two a year is sufficient.  Repetition is needed to ingrain the unique sonics or each type of instrument and vocal range.  Again there is the likelihood for sonic variations from one live venue to another, one brand or design of a given instrument to another, and individual vocal characteristics.  So broad and aggregated experience becomes necessary.

BTW, I trust that frogman won't mind if I reveal that he is a professional musician of long standing who also enjoys home music reproduction.  So he has the benefit of  experience and musical knowledge as a bases for his perceptions.

As for me, I have MM, MI, and LOMC examples (thanks to Raul's earlier post) and find something to enjoy in each type.  But I started in this hobby in the mid-1960s and my ears no longer demand the precise playback they once did.  So I don't worry about the fine points as much as I used to. ;^)

 

I've myself attended many live performances, Choirs, Choristers, Orchestral, Acoustic, Rock.

Some of the Venues visited have been wonderful to listen to Music, with even the Albert Hall included, which has had extensive work carried out to enhance the Venue for live performance.

A HiFi System can't do it, it can't encapsulate an individual in the expanse of the sound.

The Sound at a Live Venue is usually omnidirectional and expands to envelope the listener.

A Rock Venue not so much, as this is expansive sound but directional.

A Sound produced from a Audio System is directional, it is here where all similarities are lost to a live performance.

I don't disagree with the idea, a particular instrument when heard on a Audio System, can create the perception there is an honesty to the sound being produced, bit the lag between a Instrument Heard in one location, the exposure to endless ambient sound from the local environment, and then listening to a recorded music on the home system, even if achieved in the shortest of timeline, leaves a individual with a corrupted hearing.

I suggest anybody with the notion on board, they are able to have equivalent of a  Live Music Encounter, as a match for a Recorded Music Audio Experience, has a little fantastical attached to their notion and inaccurate assessment.

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.

@jhnnrrs He made a lot of claims but his studies (like you see in IAR #5) lacked the provenance to really know what was going on. For example, for MM cartridges to work right you have to deal with the high inductance they have. That inductance is high enough that the cartridge can ring at audio frequencies, and the inductance in parallel with the tonearm cable can set up an electrical resonance just at the upper end of the audio band or barely ultrasonic. This can mess with phono sections if they don't have a good HF overload characteristic.

So for the study to be valid, the phono section used, the tonearm cable capacitance has to be stated along with the inductance of the cartridge and what was done about it.

If LP playback has a strong weakness against digital, setup is arguably it- with digital its nearly plug and play but if you want the best out of an analog system it has to be set up right/you have to know what you are doing.

***************************

IME the ability of the arm to properly track the cartridge is far more important then what cartridge you have. Some arms are a lot better at this sort of thing than others!

FWIW as reference I use recordings that I recorded, some of which I also mastered to LP.

Dear @mglik  :I don't own the Epoch 3 but I own severalvintage Grado ones where the  TLZ is from where the your cartridge came on design and main difference is that the TLZ does not usegold wire and its cartridge body is plastic where cantilever is not made by ruby material.

The Grado TLZ series was the Joseph Grado cartridge motor design and the next model a tophad a 1K price in those old times.

So, I think in good " hands " with. The main characteristic I remember ( I still own the TLZ ) is that is a performer that just refuse to distort no matters what.I like it but " to musical " for me and different to the London Decca you owned.

Good that you enjoy it so much.

 

R.

 

Dear @daveyf  :I can see in your system the Kleos and I think the BM Ruby.

Permit me ask: why have you preference for the LOMC cartridges?.Btw, I own the Kleos and owned all Ruby versions.

 

R.

@rauliruegas   Raul, I no longer own the Benz.To answer your question as to why I prefer LOMC’s, it is one word…resolution. I find in my system that the better MC’s resolve more detail than any of the MM’s I have owned. Same goes for the MI’s. I have not heard a really good optical in my system, but the one’s I have heard are very nice…for a very high price. One thing that has not been discussed is the impact on the cartridge of the phono stage, and the arm, both of which make a very large difference, IME. 

I agree with @daveyf , and would add that a good LOMC suppresses groove noise better than the others. But the other consideration is stylus profile and cantilever material. It’s all up to the owner’s ears in the end, maybe no wrong answer here.

@daveyf : " is the impact on the cartridge of the phono stage, and the arm, both of which make a very large difference. "

Yes, but remember that in the OP says: " everything the same. " and I touched there all what you posted and what @bslon did it to. Btw, the designer of your Aerial speakers by coincidence was the engineer in chief on ADS and he was the personal designer of my vintage  Professional Monitors ADS L2030 speakers, after ADS he started his own company: Aerial.

 

R.

Under the category of " everything the same" as a methodology for having experienced a broad range of Cart' Types.

All my previous reports are askew, as I have not had the experiences where all ancillaries to support the use of the Cart' are identical.

I am also sure TA used today are selected for their being better for the usage of a particular Cart' Design and Phonostages Types used have evolved in their designs where they have become more desirable to keep maintained in use.

 " everything the same ". Is to prove to be difficult to adhere to, as a means of offering a report. 

 

Please offer a mechanism to explain why a “good LOMC suppressed groove noise better than the others”, other than that’s your opinion.

I think stylus profile has more to do with the amount of groove noise than the type of motor at the top of the cantilever (honorable exception: a mono cartridge that is insensitive to vertical motion).

@lewm @jhnnrrs

I have two of the higher end cartridges, a diamond Koetsu and a Grado Epoch. The Koetsu at 1510 hours (minimal stylus wear at 1000 hours by photomicrograph) is exceptional in its smoothness, quietness, resolution, sweetness, and musicality, but not so much on tracking. As a provisional opinion, the new Grado surpasses the Koetsu (at 1510 hours) in all resects, and is a superb tracker. It likes a stiff wand with good damping, but doesn’t work well with sapphire IMO - too analytical for my taste.

I’ll be switching back to the Koetsu soon for variety, when my opinion will firm up. Both are good, one seems better. As for fuzzy ...

Air bearing table and tonearm, battery powered air gap / vacuum capped RIAA, ESL’s.

@rauliruegas LOVE the Hana Umami Red.  I also have a Soundsmith Paua which I consider to be on the same level.  I think these carts are right in the sweet spot for price vs performance.  

The answer to Raul's OP question seems to be no, nobody knows which cartridge type is inherently "better".  But most of us have an opinion.

Dear @terry9  :Both different cartridges overall tone color and other characteristics.

I used several cartridges with ruby cantilever and no oneof them really satisfied totally to me. The top  Grado lost alittle the natural agresiveness, brigthness and even agresiveness that we can listen seated at near field posiiton in live MUSIC but overall is a good performer.

@lewm, you said in a few words what I attempted with many.

Please offer a mechanism to explain why a “good LOMC suppressed groove noise better than the others”, other than that’s your opinion.

No you are wrong.

@frogman never said that was his opinion.

@frogman posted that this was his experience in his system with cartridges he has used in that environment.

There is a vast chasm between an actual lived experience and an opinion.

Doctors often offer an opinion because they have to cover off the fact that they may well be wrong with their diagnosis. Compare this with their patient who also may have their own opinion on their health woes, but it is only the patient that has actually experienced the ill health in their body and can describe accurately what they have experienced.

 

The answer to Raul's OP question seems to be no, nobody knows which cartridge type is inherently "better".  But most of us have an opinion.

And that's the sad fact about audio forums - there are so many opinions that are not based on actual lived experiences.

There are tens of thousands of posts in this forum claiming cartridge "a" was much better than cartridge "b", but probably substantially less than a thousand where the author actually described what the differences were in some detail with references to music played.

Furthermore  the number of times that someone posts their cartridge comparison and includes information on context - turntable/arm & phono used, would be less than 100.

Therefore many posts are meaningless, other than providing an opportunity for social discourse.

 

 

Dear @dgarretson  : Certainly is a real pleasure to meet you here again, as a fact I know that as me several Agoners miss you and miss your very kigh knowledge audio world levels either technically and sound system first hand experiences. I hope you can continue, time to time, in this forum that needs gentlemans as you.

 

" throughout your epic thread I accumulated many vintage TOTL MM/MI cartridges, many NOS, and was finally convinced that on identical tonearms a Stanton 981LZS was pretty close to a Lyra Etna. Not to mention top Grace, Precept, Astatic, even an inexpensive Sonus Blue-- a fast and lovely sounding very high compliance design. "

 

As you several music lovers/audiophiles ( including me ) really enjoy that " new " long cartridge voyage that still today continue.

Your sentence about the Stanton/Etna truly helps me to confirm part of my opinion/answer that till today I don't posted yet in this thread. Obviously that I have my self OP conclusions that will share with all Agoners any time from now.

Btw, yes optical old design cartridge is the " fashion " ( for good reasons. ) in analog with the advantage ( along SG cartridge designs. ) that to develops voltage through tracking grooves velocitties both optical/SG makes it as an amplitude devices and yes as everything in analog has its own trade-offs.

Good to see you again.

 

R.

Dear @pryso : " I don’t intend to say attending one or two a year is sufficient. Repetition is needed to ingrain the unique sonics or each type of instrument and vocal range. Again there is the likelihood for sonic variations from one live venue to another, one brand or design of a given instrument to another, and individual vocal characteristics. So broad and aggregated experience becomes necessary. "

 

You are just spot on.

 

Btw, you know I live in México and in one of my USA trips I was in San Diego Area where I meet you along other incredible gentlemans and audiophiles. I was at your place listening your system through those great Duntech Sorveign and was at your home where took place the second shoot-out between the Dartzeel phonolinepreamp and my Essential 3150 That was a great time with all of you where the most important issue for me was to know great great human being with which all been shared our first hand experiences of our beloved hooby: MUSIC and MUSIC home reproduction.

For me the time with all of you were learning audio times that even today gaves me certainty to my way of thinking in audio world.

Same happened in Dallas ( two times ) with audio lovers as @albertporter and his group, he had the opportunity to listen the Essential 3150 and in the second trip the Essential 3160 too. I was in Idaho, Austin, LA, Denver, Georgia, twice in Houston where I been hosted in his house both times by a gentleman that is some one to meet him and obviously his audio friends he is @fcrowder where I listened for the very first time Rockport TT and the top of the line Acapella speakers: great room/system for say the least.

To many places to name all but I can’t let out Phiuladelphia area hosted by a dear @sbank and his group and between that group was @slipknot1 and that time we liste to the Essential 3150 in his place in a meeting with their audio area club ( at least 20 audiopphiles there ) where was there Lloyd Walker ( TT designer. ) a close fiend of him , obviously that he owned the Walker Procenium surrounded by top audio system.

From here a hot regards to all of them and you in especial.

 

R.

 

Great post Raul.

As always there are many roads to Rome. No one cartridge design has been shown to be significantly better. It is all in the execution. I have heard several very convincing MC and MI cartridges. MM seems to lag a little bit behind. I auditioned the Strain Gauge. It is on the bright side do to response irregularities and it will not handle high groove velocities near as well as a MI or MC cartridge will.

I believe everyone should carefully examine new cartridges and any irregularity should be reported to the company immediately. No manufacturer can be perfect 100% of the time when it comes to these microscopic assemblies. Careful alignment is also necessary to produce the best performance. Only the owner will take the time to do this correctly. There are tools that greatly improve accuracy in cartridge alignment. I would like to suggest the WallySkater, the Wally Performance and the SmarTractor as tools that can greatly speed up this process and improve accuracy. 

Dover, I don’t think I can be wrong for asking why a “good LOMC cartridge” (whatever that is) would produce lowest groove noise. Because I’ve made no assertion. I just wanna know why. Of course I also think compliance, VTA, stylus shape, and almost everything else have more to do with groove noise than the mechanics of transduction.

Is it possible to really generalize about this?  Can we say that all mms are inferior to all mc, for example?  Or are some mm better than some mcs?  One can speak of general traits of differing technologies, but ultimately a high degree of musical fidelity can be obtained with all of them.  At some point listener preference becomes key

@dover , great to hear from you and thank you for your concern, but it was not I who made the comment re groove noise.

In the endless debate about the relevance of the live music experience as reference, as @rauliruegas has pointed out this comment from @pryso is key.  It may not be possible or practical for some, but there is no getting around it.

*** I don’t intend to say attending one or two a year is sufficient. Repetition is needed to ingrain the unique sonics or each type of instrument and vocal range. Again there is the likelihood for sonic variations from one live venue to another, one brand or design of a given instrument to another, and individual vocal characteristics. So broad and aggregated experience becomes necessary. ***

 

 

Mahler, in my opinion, no, it is not possible to generalize about the different transduction mechanisms, as regards a pecking order of what gives best SQ. All MCs are certainly not better than all MMs, to address your specific point.

@lewm  exactly, especially when you consider price.

MM and MC cartridges occupy two distinctly different markets. Buyers of MC cartridges are willing to spend much more money on a cartridge than buyers of MM cartridges. Thus, MM cartridges are a much better value. MM cartridges rule below about $1500. MI cartridges seem to straddle the two markets. I would rather have say an Ortofon 2M Black LVB than any of the low end Hana cartridges. The one huge advantage of high output cartridges is a much better signal to noise ratio which everyone will notice right away.  If you have a MM phono stage and desire to get into the highest level of performance I can not recommend the Soundsmith Voice highly enough. It makes far more sense and will be less expensive than springing for a MC phono stage and cartridge. 

@frogman Thank you for the link: I do know that musicologists regard tension and release as something written on the stave. My point was why is they can say that? Why do we all, or nearly all, recognise what the music is doing to us? That must belong to the realm of neurology, even if we don't have the foggiest idea of how.

@mijostyn After a day of experimentation yesterday, I'm of the opinion that the Sussurro MkII ES sounds different this time because it is awfully sensitive to VTA - I believe I have read that the Soundsmith OCL stylus looks a lot like an Ortofon Replicant. For the first time I'm seeing why Soundsmith cartridges are so beloved by their owners. Once I had fiddled with that, I ended up playing albums on the LP-S, Sussurro and Decca Reference. The LP-S plays them in a coolly clinical way, detailed but not necessarily involving (and this is supposed to be a relatively lush MC!). The Sussurro would be a great way of getting a non-vinyl person to see why they might try it out. It's warm, bouncy and rich, but still has nearly all the detail of the LP-S, if a bit less clarity. The Decca is somewhere between those extremes. I wish I were in a position to try The Voice and a Hyperion too. (I cannot speak about imaging or soundstage, having one ear and no ability to hear stereo.)

@rauliruegas You're right that rare live attendances at live music won't make much impression. I wonder whether the kind of performance makes a difference too? I used to go to half a dozen operas a year, so I feel I know what one ought to sound like (for that hall etc). My next door neighbour before my last move used to offer piano and chamber recitals in a purpose built space in her home, and often remarks how much she likes to listen to my hi-fi. I have very little exposure to small venue jazz, folk or vocals, so I may be less critical about those kinds of music. I suppose that at the end of it all, as long as we enjoy what we use, we should be happy. It just makes it harder to describe the sound of a cartridge to others if we don't share a reference point.

@dogberry  Good to hear. Yes, all of the more advanced stylus shapes VTA sensitive because they have a longer contact patch. You can lose the high end easily. The OCL stylus is more like the stylus Lyra uses in the Atlas. It is not quite as severe as the replicant. Soundsmith's MR stylus is much more like the reolicant, but the Replicant remains the most severe stylus on the market. The GygerS is closest. I have a new Hyperion MR, but I can not really comment on it yet. It is a little brighter than I like and I will be able to EQ it shortly. Then I will listen more carefully and comment. 

Live Opera in a great theater is an incredible experience. You can't know what the human voice can do until you hear one and it is a great example of what a great system should sound like. Close your eyes for a few minutes and imagine you are listening to a stereo. Detail the sound in your mind, a mental note. 

I might also add that from my perspective tracking performance and detail are most important. With the ability to EQ a cartridge you can modify the sound to taste. The Hyperion MR is a great example. It tracks like a bandit and is superbly detailed, but just a bit on the bright side for me. This is easy to fix. Poor detail and poor tracking can not be fixed. 

Mijostyn, You wrote, "The one huge advantage of high output cartridges is a much better signal to noise ratio which everyone will notice right away." That is actually a very complex statement, not completely correct and not completely incorrect, in my opinion. To begin with a low output cartridge will per se have a worse SN ratio when its signal reaches the first amplification stage, simply because noise due to the LP surface irregularities and etc is a fixed base affecting all types equally and signal is purely a function of the cartridge output. So LO cartridges are at a disadvantage vs HO cartridges purely as regards the ratio of S to N, because S is relatively low. But at the phono stage output, I would think the disadvantage in SN ratio is ameliorated at least to a degree (different for each of the myriad of different possible combinations of cartridge and phono stage), if the phono stage is very low in noise and I suppose if one is using a SUT to supply some voltage gain for an LOMC. Anyway, I am rarely bothered by the sense that noise is a problem with LO cartridges. What I sense when comparing let’s say a good LOMC to a good MI cartridge is that the LOMC always seems just a tad lean compared to real music and compared to what the best MI cartridges can do. With the latter on average I get a greater sense of the real. Especially on piano jazz do I sense problems with good LOMCs. Again, I have never had a $10K+ LOMC in my system, or even one costing much more than $6K.

Since LOMC cartridges tend to be low in compliance, I would guess that most of my mild dissatisfaction with even "good" ones is due to mistracking, especially on piano.  So that would be my beef with LOMC, not noise.

Dear @mijostyn  : " I auditioned the Strain Gauge. It is on the bright side do to response irregularities and it will not handle high groove velocities near as well as a MI or MC cartridge will. "

I agree with you on the brigth side of SG but not in your last sentence due that as optical cartridge design SG did not develops voltage due that " no sense " groove velocity but its amplitude and tha's why in the first page of the thread @mke246  posted that his SoundSmith SG cartridges has not only lower noise but lower distortion even at inner grooves that his high compliance Shure cartridge and he has reason on what he is listening.

 

R.

What I have learnt from this thread is that a MI Cart' can now be acquired for $12K.

Setting the Brand of that Cart's other models aside, what is the price jump from another go to MI Cart' to get to the cost referred to above, $6K, $7K, $8k as there are no in between models?.

In the MC Market the outlays to get to $12K, would easily be progressive in 300 - $500 increments, even all the way up to $15K, as a result of the range of models on offer.

@rauliruegas, thanks for the kind words and memories.  Your visit was a wonderful leaning experience and meeting you was a pleasure.

However I must make a correction, My Duntech speakers were Princesses.  The Sovereigns were much too large for my room, not to mention well beyond my budget.

But that was many years ago and many things have changed, including a major move.  Unfortunately I no longer have that decent sized group of audio friends nearby.  That was important since in San Diego I had opportunities to hear many different audio systems in a variety of home settings.  Just like live unamplified music, and the almost embarrassing number of components I've gone through, hearing a multitude of different systems is an education for our ears.

I have a new Hyperion MR, but I can not really comment on it yet. It is a little brighter than I like and I will be able to EQ it shortly. Then I will listen more carefully and comment.

Looking forward to that. I could raid the retirement savings if I had to do so.

Anyway, I am rarely bothered by the sense that noise is a problem with LO cartridges. What I sense when comparing let’s say a good LOMC to a good MI cartridge is that the LOMC always seems just a tad lean compared to real music and compared to what the best MI cartridges can do. With the latter on average I get a greater sense of the real.

Exactly! My impression is that my LP-S and the Sussurro make two endpoints, and the Decca Reference sits between them.

@rauliruegas  I think you misunderstood me. By groove velocity I meant heavier modulation, miss-tracking. That brightness is because it does not have RIAA correction. It sounds very vivid which some people like, but it is not natural. 

@dogberry   I am not so sure about the two different end points. I think that is more a characteristic of the LP-S. It has been my experience that the best cartridges of each group converge. Any sonic differences are mostly due to minor differences in amplitude response. At this moment my gold standard is the Atlas SL. From the listening I did with the Hyperion MR I suspect that once I EQ it it will sound very much like the Atlas. 

@lewm I suspect I listen at louder levels than you do and are more irritated by phono stage hiss. The hiss is a problem coming from the phono stage not the cartridge. Obviously with higher output cartridges this is not as much of a problem. Phono stages that will gracefully amplify very low output cartridges without audible hiss at say 95 dBSPL are very expensive. My point is that you can get even better signal to noise ratios out of high output cartridges and much less expensive phono stages. 

That "lean" characteristic you note with LOMC cartridges is not universal. I would never describe the Atlas, MC Diamond or Signature Platinum as lean. However, MI cartridges can easily perform at the same level. As I have mentioned on many occasions, the Soundsmith Voice can give any cartridge a run for the money using much less expensive phono stages. People speak well of the Grado Epoch and I had a Statement at one point for over a decade. It was a very enjoyable cartridge. I also suspect that less expensive MI cartridges can perform very well like your Nagaoka. Now that I also have a MM phono stage I plan on trying one. 

@lewm  The MC cartridges I have do not have any problem tracking. They range from medium to low compliance. The lower compliance cartridge uses the highest VTF, but it also has the largest contact patch. Higher compliance cartridges track at lower VTFs, but it seems they are all capable of handling 80um @ 315 Hz. 

Dear @mahler123 and friends :

" One can speak of general traits of differing technologies, but ultimately a high degree of musical fidelity can be obtained with all of them. "

 

Tha’s my main conclusion that I achieved through all my first hand experiences in the MUSIC/audio world.

 

Exist and existed several MM/LOMC/HOMC/MI/IM/MF/ELectrostatic/ and the like that are superb one against the other with no real winner no matter what.

 

As many of you I made and still make several cartridge compARISONS/EVALUATIONS/TESTS using over 30 different tonearms, over 10 different TTs, over 10 different phono stages, over 15 different SUTs, heavy different cartridge output levels/compliances/stylus shapes/cantilever materias and in several room/system and mainly in my room/system. In all cases/situations using almost the same test whole proccess using almost the same LP tracks at almost the same SPLs. So I trust in my unbiased conclusions.

One important issue is that my audio system noise floor is inaudible other that by a bat. You can swith on system link one by one or switch off and you can’t detect any noise even with your ear at 5cm. of my 95db efficiency speakers.

Each kind of design cartridge has its own noise floor and I agree with @mijostyn

that when we have a HO cartridge we totally now is HO and not a LOMC design no matter what and this is a heavy advantage between a HO cartridges against the LOMC ones but in the other side the LOMC cartridge has the great advantage that the cartridge signal pass internally to very short wires against the HO that in that specific regards makes a little higher signal degradation that the LOMC but nothig comes by free because that LOMC advantage has a price to pay for: it needs phonolinepreamps with additional gain stages that degrades too the cartridge signal where in the HO cartridges that degradation is lower.

So, it’s a figth between those cartridge specific characteristics that again has no inherent winner.

LOMC cartridges arenon sensible to load impedance/capacitance and this fact is an advantage when the MM and MI are sensible to load impedance and

capacitance.Nothing is perfect but electrostatic designs are not sensitive at allin those characteristics.

LOMC cartridges has other advantage when his cantilever/stylus is not changeable like the MM/MI/IM;MF;elctrostatic but in the old times and today these cartridge type of designs (not all only a few of them ) took assolution and B&O was the first design with fixed cantilever/stylus ( today only Grado and SS that came from B&O desin cartridges.) other manufacturers made different as Technics in his EPC 100C MK4 and Audio Technica in their models AT 24 and AT 25 but Signet too ( member of AT group. ) with the TKS9/10 where the stylus cantilever/is ounted in a tiny metal frame srewed to the bottom cartridge body.

This fixed cantilever/stylus is way important because avoid additional developed distortions that I detected with the Stanton/Pickering cartridge and where both been exactly the same cartridge design/motor Pickering

came with a tigther assemble to the cartridge than the Stanton one and you know what: you can interchange one for the other cantilever/stylus in the HO MM designs as a fact is the way how I listen to the Stanton.

There is an Agoner that almost hates the HOMC cartridges and my take is that he had not the opportunity to listen it in a first/top phonolinepreamp and the HOMC specific models that perfortma beautyful through a MM stage.We need a topMM stage to do it and for the MM cartridges and even the MI/MF/IM and the like that phono stage needs at least the we can load the cartridge at 100k not 47k and even 200k is better along the need it capacitance according each cartridge.

Well if some of us do not like the HOMC cartridges mainly reasons are the ones explained here but what about MC cartridges designs that are designed with user remplacable cantilever/stylus,ether LO/HO?

Well I still own 3 of those designs. One from Empire, one from Sony and the best ones in the world by Satin. Till you listen the Sony or Satin ( different models in between. ) HO changeable cantilever/stylus in the rigth MM phono stage you just can’t know whay you losted in the MUSIC enjoyment. The Sony was made by Satin and is a truly dificult cartridge to mates to any tonearm due that its weigth 18grs. with over 30 cu and 4.0mv output but it’s an excellent performer, its bass range is something you can live only true live MUSIC seated at near field position:period.

 

That I remember and he did it by coincidence the only Agonerbs that I know that already listened to a Satin HO replaceable stylus/cantilever are @sbank  and @dgarretson due that @sbank bougth from me a Satin ( that I still own and is formidable. ) that when he received and aftera few hours started to distort when @dgarretson by coicidence was at his place: Spencer knows about and yes I changed for a different cartridge that fortunatelly likes himand the Satin came back to me..

 

Btw, @dogberry touched the word " neurologist " and this link will explain all about that when listening MUSIC at home or in alive even or when we are doing comparisons:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8228195/#:~:text=The%20amygdala%20participates%20in%20the,of%20the%20fight%2Dor%2Dflight

 

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,

R.

Can someone please provide a glossary for MM/MI/IM/MF/HOMC & LOMC?

@pryso Your below statements are ones that I identify with and can not be in more agreement, that broadening ones listening in the homes of others with a real enthusiasm and adeptness for thing audio is a substantial foundation for finding ones place in how a Audio System can sound. 

"I had opportunities to hear many different audio systems in a variety of home settings. "

"I've gone through, hearing a multitude of different systems is an education for our ears."

Collect em all and win. Flavorizers aka pleasure seeking has a big place w studio music where the intention is not accuracy and in anything coming out of a DAW. But flavorizing does not obviate the need for some from seeking better reproduction of sound. Some of us on the consuming end go to great lengths to make reference recordings… and certainly a few… precious few manufacturers do…

i fondly remember the magical, inexpensive yet in some systems intoxicating lowly $ HOMC Audioquest AQ-404….

Fun

Dear @mijostyn  : " I auditioned the Strain Gauge. It is on the bright side do to response irregularities and it will not handle high groove velocities near as well as a MI or MC cartridge will. "

I agree with you on the brigth side of SG but not in your last sentence due that as optical cartridge design SG did not develops voltage due that " no sense " groove velocity but its amplitude and tha's why in the first page of the thread @mke246  posted that his SoundSmith SG cartridges has not only lower noise but lower distortion even at inner grooves that his high compliance Shure cartridge and he has reason on what he is listening.

Interestingly, the material for which I use the SG has a flat treble response (1920s early electrical recordings), and after I run the SG input through an inverse RIAA treble filter, it's marginally darker than a moving magnet, which in my experience is almost always a good thing. Sometimes I really want to be able to use the moving magnet transfer, but there will always be a few spots where it has notes with distortion that the SG tracks brilliantly. Hard to explain. All my 78 stylii have aluminum cantilevers. I'd like to use something lighter, but it's going to be tough. A friend found someone to make him sapphire cantilever 78 stylii; might try those at some point. I hear they're a bit bright and need EQ to flatten out. I'd really like to find a sustainable 78 archival solution that is as good as or better than the SG and much more affordable, but no obvious answers in sight.

@mke246  It seems none of the cartridge manufacturers think 78s are worth the effort. I use an Ortofon 2M series for 78s. It has a huge bonded spherical stylus. To describe the 78s I have a scratchy would be an understatement. I would love to know what a new unused 78 sounded like. I do have digital examples of Caruso singing that were taken from 78s and cleaned up with DSP. He sounds like he is in a phone booth holding his nose singing into a plastic bag, but you do get the idea. 

Small point:  I did not mean to declare definitively that LOMCs can fail to produce realistic piano music because of low compliance resulting in mistracking.  I certainly do not know that to be the case.  I was just offering that as one unsubstantiated possibility.  I do also observe that my LOMCs with highish compliance, like the Ortofon MC2000, do a much better job on piano.  Thus I infer there might be a relationship.  But I campaign against making associations that seem logical but for which there is no direct evidence, and that is one example of such.

Dear @ak749  : IM means:Induced Magnet as the ADC crtridges and MF is: Moving Flux as the Astatic/Micro Seiki/Glanz and MP: Moving Permalloy like the Nagaoka ones. The Electrostatic I mentioned is the MicroAcoustic cartridges and all these cartridge motor designs work through MM phono stages.

You can get samples of all the cartridge motors mendioned in the thread through ebay and other web sites.

R.

Dear @mahler123  : I'm curious how do you arrived to that conclusion that's similar to mine? because I read that you own only MM cartridge/phono stage. I don't think that what you posted was just at " random " but could be.

Can you explain a little about? thank's in advance.

 

R.