MC versus MM. Which to choose.

Raul: As I have stated repeatedly, among other MM and MI cartridges, I own multiple units of the EPC100C Mk4. I find it to be quite good, but not nearly as good as you seem to think. When I play a Titan, for example, through my Connoisseur phono stage, the EPC100 does not measure up.

I have also designed MMs (OEM jobs), and apart from the fact that the high output voltage makes the job of the phono stage easier, and is more resistant to the sonic degradation that you get when the tonearm designer has decided that it is OK to put multiple electrical contacts in series with the signal (like you get with universal headshell tonearms), I don't see the advantages.

In the past, myself and other posters have suggested cartridges like the JVC L1000, in which the signal coils are ultra low-mass microcircuits that are bonded directly to the stylus. This is a huge architectural advantage, and there is no engineering aspect about the EPC100 that should make it competitive with the L1000. This is exactly how these two cartridges sound to me, also. The EPC100 is sounds good, but it is not nearly as good as the L1000. I think that other audiophiles who own both of these cartridges, and use the L1000 with a really good phono stage or headamp like the Pioneer H-Z1, will agree with this.

The fact that you don't seem to be able to hear this to me sounds completely illogical. Why on earth should passing the LP signal via a longish cantilever into a large and comparatively sprawling high-inductance magnetic circuit (as on the EPC100) sound better than passing the LP signal directly from the stylus into a compact magnetic circuit with very low inductance (as on the L1000)? Apart from personal preference, and perhaps the vagaries of matching cartridges to preamps, I can't think of any reason.

>For me had no sense to change under hard pressure by the AHEE from MM/MI alternative to LOMC one. This happen several years ago with no clear reasons other than $$$$$.

A manufacturer is free to make whatever he likes. A customer is also free to buy whatever he likes. I would like to hear specifically what kind of "hard pressure" you are talking about, because I've not seen it.

>why in the hell the AHEE took the customers and left in the LOMC road?

Again, you seem to be making accusations that have no factual basis. FWIW, my limit as a cartridge manufacturer is monthly production capacity. Right now it wouldn't be feasible for Lyra to make much more than 80 cartridges per month. Since it is possible to make MMs and MIs at a much faster rate than with MCs, if I knew how to design a superb MM or MI that I felt was fully competitive with the very best MCs, I'd take the opportunity in a flash, because it would be the answer to my production capacity problems. I could earn a lot more if I had such an MM or MI in my product lineup.

The reality is that I don't know how to design such a superb MM or MI, nor have I encountered any MMs or MIs that were good enough to convince me that I should seriously study how they were designed and put together.

As to why more cartridge manufacturers don't have MMs or MIs in their product lineup, it's most likely because not everyone shares your opinion.

As to whether I am biased in favor of MCs over MMs, my position is completely neutral. If I can figure out how to design an MM or MI that convinces my ears that it is is worth adding to my product lineup, I promise that I will do so. If not, I won't.

Business-wise, I wish that I could have a really stellar MM or MI in my product lineup, because it would allow Lyra to expand as a cartridge manufacturer.

kind regards, jonathan carr

Speaking as someone who has designed cartridges, phono stages and tonearms, my experience is that the choice for best sound between MM and MC depends largely on the phono stage and the tonearm and to a lesser extent, the turntable.

The tracking ability of a cartridge depends greatly on the tonearm that it is installed in, and the sonic performance of a cartridge can be made or broken by the phono stage. Regarding both tonearms and phono stages, I have found MCs to be considerably more demanding of the equipment that they are paired with. Phrasing that observation slightly differently, you could say that MMs/MIs make it easier and cheaper to design a phono stage or a tonearm that sounds relatively good.

Although I have heard many MM/MIs and rather like some of them, I have heard no current or out-of-production product that has made me think that I must add a similar MM or MI to our cartridge lineup.

OTOH, I do believe that MM/MIs have the possibility of conferring certain key advantages over MCs for a cartridge designer who has very specific design goals in mind.

hth, jonathan carr

Hi Nandric:

Some of Raul's accusations feel a bit hollow to me, since I for one never stopped listening to MMs or MIs alongside MCs (which is by no means uncommon among audiophiles in Japan). Hearing about Raul and other audiophiles "rediscovering" MMs or MIs therefore sounds rather bizarre. Also, Audio-Technica and Nagaoka-JewelTone continue to make and sell lots of MM cartridges in Japan, so I don't get the impression that there is a lack of development effort being put into the genre.

But everything is OK between Raul and me. I don't have any animosity for Raul, and judging from the way that he writes, he doesn't have any for me.

As I said in a previous post, my attitude to MMs or MIs is that if or when I can design an MM or MI that convinces me that it is is worth signing my name on it, I will add it to my product lineup. When and if.

But please, let's not create flames where there is no need. I will continue to design and produce as I feel is correct, and I am sure that Raul will post and design in the same spirit.

At the very worst, we will simply agree to disagree about our respective opinions.

kind regards, jonathan carr