MM, MC, or MI cartridge

@rvpiano , 

I've been following your many posts. 

It you're looking for a natural presentation, go SoundSmith 

MC are fun but not a natural/live presentation of the live performance.

One of my life long goals was to try to emulate my live musical experience with my experience at home The MI carts from SS provide this.

Your potential choice is a great choice

the Sutherland 20/20 is dead silent which

is important

Been playing a Lyra Delos through it for 2 years

with great success

Good luck Willy-T

@rauliruegas

You bring up an interesting point. Does analog and digital sound actually have a different sound? A decade ago, I would have said yes. Today I have to say no… or it is a philosophical question. My analog and digital sound the same. When digital sounded bad, it was the immaturity of the rendering electronics. 

My Analog end and digital end sound the same because I have selected equipment that renders them the same. I have all Audio Research equipment, in particular the Phono Stage and DAC… I chose a cartridge that was natural and musical (Koetsu Rosewood Signature) and a streamer that was outstanding and natural (Aurender W20SE).

So they sound the same. You cannot separate the rendering mechanism from the source. So, while you can easily say vinyl trumps MP3… because of the huge imbalance in innate resolution. If you consider digital and analog in say the less than $500,000 system you can have them the same. In the $500K system you are likely to have to spend more on digital… but only maybe 20% to equal. But I am not trying to get into details. The issue is that the sound is almost all about rendering, not about the source.

Inna,

Actually I was not referring to the quietness of digital.  On my set the digital format has a certain clarity that the analog does not.  Maybe rauliruegas is right and that type of clarity  is uniquely a digital trait, but I’m hoping to get it with the new cartridge.

Dear rauliruegas,

I understand your point. Analog is analog, and digital is digital and never the twain shall meet. Each has its own unique character.
However, I believe there are SOME  traits that can be validly compared to each other.  
I totally agree that music is the essential thing, and I have written extensively about that.  
But, this is still a hobby that we  can have some fun with if we don’t get too carried away (which is easy to do.)

 

What about moving iron cartridges??

I have always been interested in the legendary London Decca Reference cart.

I currently use a Lyra Atlas SL. Hard to imagine a $5250 London beats the $13K Lyra.

But the. London reviews all say it produces “scary real”.

Anyone have experience with one?

rvpiano, you probably mean that you want analogue to be very quiet. That's a lot of effort, beginning with finding the best pressings.

Someone said D word ? Oh no. 

Dear @rvpiano  : "  I’m hoping that the new Hana ML cartridge will have some (but not all) the characteristics of digital. "

Digital and analog medium are two way different  media. Both with its own characteristics.

That we can like some analog characteristics the hope that digital even those characteristics is out of question and there is no reasons to wait for.

An apple always will tastes as an apple and a banana as a banana.

Both proccess, recording/playback, in both alternatives are totally/absolutely different.

Our preferences is other different issue that has nothing to do with those alternatives and it's way complex/complicated.

Try to enjoy the more you can MUSIC you are listening, that's all about. Which media: I don't care but as you several gentlemans cares about.

R.

@jasonbourne52 

@wolfie62 : a mono pole magnet does not exist! If you could invent one you could qualify for the Nobel Prize for Physics!

LOL!!!

Really? You are EXACTLY the type of person I was referring to! You don’t comprehend how MC/MI/MM cartridges work!

When you induce magnetic flux into a non-magnetic soft iron (Mumetal or other brands), you induce from only 1 permanent magnet pole. The entire armature takes on that one pole’s N or S polarity. It would be physically impossible to have both poles of magnetic flux. The armature is then an *extension* of the one magnetic pole. The armature in the coil pole gap has only 1 pole’s magnetic flux. A true MONOPOLE of magnetic flux! 
 

And BTW, a small, powerful rare earth magnet on a cantilever also has 2 magnetic poles in very close proximity to each other, and to the coil poles. Doesn’t happen in an MI armature!

lalitk,

You’re right, I am happy to fall back on my digital system. 
In some ways, I’m hoping that the new Hana ML cartridge will have some (but not all) the characteristics of digital. Will have to wait about a week for the new cart to find out.

@rvpiano The Virtuoso is a very good cartridge and worth repairing. Send it to Andy Kim. He does great work and turns Tibbs around quickly. http://www.phonocartridgeretipping.com/

@zazouswing  : In the other side why if the high compliance MM cartridges can pick up more grooves information can't even the LOMC princple? easy different cartridge motors.

Some one named the Technics EPC 100C MK4 that I owned in its stand alone version and is a superb example of one of the best MM has for offer as could be the AKG P100LE on the MI side. 

But I'm talking here of vintage cartridges that if were under today production with today parts used for the top LOMC cartridges will be a true challenge to them.

I know that my next comments are not what the OP ask for but MM always was and is in clear disadvantage vs LOMC cartridges due that for around the last 40 years the audio phono stage electronics industry was in precise focus to gives the best designs for LOMC cartridges not for MM ones, so the MM PS were " living " in the mediocrity and for the big mass audiophiles. That's why my friend and I builded a first rate phonolinepreamp with a top MC design and a top separate MM design, but this is not the industry rule today.

Anyway, many subjects around that I think all of them were discussed in the big MM thread.

R.

@rvpiano

So many opinions, aren’t you glad to have equally good and sometimes better digital system to fall back on while you contemplate where to spend your $$ either re-tipping the damaged cart or go for Hana ML 😊

BTW, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to keep an extra cart as a backup!

OP asked about “sonics”.

I don't think this piont has been made yet but there's also the consideration the stylus cannot be replaced on a MC cartridge.  Damage the stylus and you're buying a whole new cartridge.  I know it's only money..................🤣

@wolfie62 : a mono pole magnet does not exist! If you could invent one you could qualify for the Nobel Prize for Physics!

Having 134 vintage cartridges and having bought/tried/sold 5 MC carts, there are points not mentioned, and poorly explained in this thread.

MC carts do NOT have the edge in detail or lower moving mass. And while MM and MI carts work identically, there are some major differences; these are not explained in this thread.

I’ve had 2 Dynavectors, an AT and an Ortofon MC. If your previous MM/MI carts were average, then MC wins. But I have more than several really good MI carts, and 2 Micro Acoustics carts that trounce the MCs. And….Low compliance MCs ruin  any mass advantage they might have. They are low compliance because the MC designers can’t overcome the coil wire problems with high compliance suspensions. Rob Peter to pay Paul. Make a stiff suspension to hide the coil wire compliance issues.

Micro Acoustics cartridges give you the best of all worlds; high compliance, very low mass, immunity from loading, very high detail/texture, and flat FR.

MI is a subset of MM. But there is a major difference no one talks about, because most don’t know how MM and MI work. Problem with an MM is that the magnet has a N and a S pole; the magnet has to be long enough to ONLY present 1 magnet pole to the coil poles. A short magnet will present both N and S poles in the coil pole gap, causing distortion from simultaneous - and + voltage swings. This makes for a heavy mass on the cantilever even when using rare earth magnets. 
 

MI cartridges are different from MM in one very important aspect: Mono-pole magnet. Only ONE magnet pole (N or S) is induced into the hollow and very light iron armature. So the vibrating armature in the coil pole gap only has a single magnetic charge. The armature is very effectively an extension of only 1pole of the permanent magnet. This produces a pure music sine wave in the coils; it’s that clean and effortless sound well-made MI carts are known for.

I have several MI carts, and the Micro Acoustics carts that leave the $5,000 Dynavector carts wanting. And the AT and Ortofon MC carts.

Dear @zazouswing  : Cartridge compliance takes in count all what is part of the cantilever/stylus movements for the better or that " impedes " freely movements and compliance in a cartridge is measured in static and dynamic way and vertical and horizontal one.

In the past the cartridge specs showed the vertical/horizontal compliance that normally were even.

Resonance is associated with cartridge compliance, cartridge weigth and tonearm effective mass but does not determines the inherent self cartridge habilities and I posted : " every thing the same, that means a well match between cartridge/tonearm combination.

I have a lot of LP MUSIC recordings that I use as tracking tests between them the Telarc 1812, RR Dafos and dozens more and obviously some with piano scores that as @lewm point out sometimes makes tracking really a chalenge that several LOMC can't handled with applomb.

What could be the most critical an important characteristic/issue in analog reproduction? for me the name is transient response that's what defines any single part of any " instrument color " as a whole and the overall score recorded and LOMC cartridges are faster than the other cartridge designs and for me that's why are better the LOMC: better transient response, it's suddenly/fast and this affects the time decay of the sound that affects all what we are listening.

The attack of musical notes is essencial and Orchestra Directors know very well in what they are looking through the interpretation of the whole orchestra players.

I respect your opinion and here is mine again. Remember that the transduced cartridges movements in a LOMC the signal path is way shorter that with the other designs. Of course that are other issues to take in count but are not what we are talking about. The OP said: briefly explanation and yes sometimes is not easy to be brief about.

R.

R.

I’m using a Dynavector 20x2 MC on ClearAudio Concept with Satisfy Tonearm. Curious to know how/if Hana ML would sound different?

@rvpiano FWIW I agree with @inna  - start by upgrading the RP3. However if you decide not to re-tip the virtuoso, the Hana ML is great for the money and a good place to start the MC journey.   

All of the above advice is anecdotal (a story told by one person with no statistical validity). The best the op could do would be to read up on the 3 different transducers, and then listen for himself. It takes time and effort to figure out what suits you best.

I went from MM to MC and love it. Pro Ject X2. Sumiko Moonstone MM to Hana SL. 

Thanks so much for the tip (no pun intended.)

@rvpiano -- Don't toss that Virtuoso!  It is basically an AudioTechnica VM95 body.  You can easily replace the cantilever and stylus with any AT-VM95 stylus.  I've done it, as have many others.  I replaced the stock stylus with an AT-VMN95ML microline stylus.  Very nice improvement.  There are several guides on the internet on how to do this.

Yes, MI types have been given short shrift here. No, they are not the same as MM. Any vinyl aficionado ought to listen to a few different MI types. Unfortunately, only Grado and SoundSmith continue to build them in the modern era. MI types have lowest moving mass, can have medium to high output and high compliance. Inductance is lower than MM and higher than MC. Acutex, B&O, and a few others made excellent MI cartridges back in the day. 

I read this thread for information on MI cartridges, and I’m still kind of unclear about that. I have several mm cartridges I love and a couple of mcs that I love too. I get the differences but can anyone talk more about moving iron, or are they “lumped” in with MMs Ie same characteristics as MM cartridges? Thanks in advance or I can use this for a new thread?

inna,

iI tried it, and it works, but unfortunately, doesn’t sound like it previously did.

Interesting discusion. Just to add the J. Grado, who developed and patented the first MC cartridges, ditched that design for MI. Some of the subsequent Grado MI cartridges, amongst others, sound fabulous - great detail retreival,PRAT,  wonderful tracking and are virtually silent - provided you have the right turntable and can avoid transformer hum.

I run a Hana ML through a Sutherland phononstage (60 db gain, 200 ohm loading) on my VPI table/tone arm (JMW 10.5). A nice setup and I appreciate its resolution especially on classical symphonic and chamber music. For jazz it’s quite good but not appreciably better (to my tin ear) than my Goldring Eroica high output MC was.

Honestly, this is such a subjective scenario it’s really not valuable if your sonic preference, room acoustics and hearing ability differs from mine. Like much of this hobby, a matter of making the investment and hoping for satisfaction. I don’t have the luxury of a local dealer to loan me things to try unfortunately. And I don’t often find reviews to be much more than sales pitches…although I try to read several before buying. Bottom line, pay your money, take your chance…but from my perspective, you’re on a good path with your choice.

Ortofon Quintet Blue...easy set up, great sound for 500 bucks on my trusty old Linn Basik Akito. My Quintet Red is also a great MC, but hey...ya get curious (my Linn Basik cost 500 bucks used when I bought it some years ago). A Quintet Black is in my future perhaps but man...the Blue is sublime.

Wait ! First try and see how it sounds this way.

Well, I now have no choice but to buy a new cartridge. 
I stupidly accidentally bent the stylus on my current Clearaudio Virtuoso.

@rvpiano...Well, sounds like you're good to go your way. :)

Owned both varieties, liked most for reasons already stated. *G*

Go forth and play.....

Happy wknd, y'all.

@rauliruegas - I believe I have a very different understanding of compliance than you. Firstly, compliance as I understand it is largely measurement of vertical suspension. I have several low compliance mono cartridges and I am accustom to dealing with the math there. The advantages offered by MC’s are because of the lower mass on the end of the cantilever. Mass affects all movement and with stereo cartridges, reading information at a 45 degree angle so to speak, this matters Tracking is a test associated with resonant requencied. You could use tracking to verify basic setup, but I don’t think the makeup of MC ever claimed they track better than MM’s. The sudleties afforded by lower mass do not necessary reveal themselves in tracking tests. Tracking test and comparing the compliance of the cartridge against the mass of the arm and trying to force a bad resonance. Again, there are formulas to avoid this, but I do t believe it has anything to do with he benefits of MC’s. 
 

nobody has mentioned the bid drawback of MC’s. They are one and done. Most MM’s can, sometimes very easily, have their stylus replaced. This is because the magnet and pick up are separate. Finally, several carts (Grado / Soundsmith) produce MM near or some say better than their MC content parts. 

+1 @dynamiclinearity 

Tonearm and phono preamp both make or break it with carts in general but lomc in particular...

aewarren,

I have a Sutherland 20/20 phono preamp.
It’s equipped for the job.

Yeah, and particular tubes in tube phono stage.

In some ways comparing MC and MM pickups is unfair. In general the top of the line MC pickups are way more costly than MM pickups.The question of which style is best is like a boxing match between a light weight and a heavy weight.

And then there are examples that don't fit the genral rules. I noticed that one writer said MCs have less moving mass than MMs. I suspect the decades old Technics EPC 100 MK4 MM has the least moving mass and you can find serious listeners who value it highly. And often the rare Decca pickups, not MC, are cited by people like Ken Kessler as the most dynamic pickups.

It's never straight forward. You need to know what kind of reproduction you like and look for a pickup that gives you that sound and whether it's a MM or MC should not be the deciding factor.

Oh and keep in mind that the phono stage you choose will have a big affect both on the sound and cost.

Great question!

Excellent replies!

Thank you!

Hmmm, very different advice among contributors here. Who should the OP give credence to? My money is on the vinyl veterans like @lewm and @rauliruegas (and of course @mikelavigne if you can play at his level), yet use extreme caution when considering the advice of one who dabbled with one mediocre rig for a couple of months and sold it.

Having a dozen or so of some of the finest vintage MMs, a few excellent MCs (both high, medium, and low output), and even some Electret (top Micro Acoustics maybe my favorite of all), I can say that all are capable of spectacular sound yet the matching of cartridge compliance to arm mass is much more important than the type of transducer. Vintage MM and Electret sound fantastic (even magical) with the lighter arms due to high compliance (and usually the higher the better) while MC, being low compliance, requires a high mass arm. Intrinsically, the high compliance MMs will track the LP groove better than the stiff MC. Unfortunately (IMO), in the later part of the last century, the industry went the way of low compliance MCs and thus the vast majority of (almost all) currently sold arms are now high mass so the decision is all but prescribed for you if you are buying or using newer arms. Of course there are exceptions but they tend to be rare.

One piece of advice is to stay with the more middle-range output MCs (0.5mv minimum) or even a good high-output MC (van den Hul MC2 is one) if you can’t swing a phono stage with exceptional gain vs noise performance and adjustable loading. Trust me, you will be much happier.

BTW, @inna totally nailed it.

Dynamics and tonality are two most important things to create an illusion of real performance.

Upgrade turntable first, tonearm second, phono stage third and cartridge forth.

You will need thousands for a great MC and phono to match it. Often phono stage should be double the cost of the cartridge, or more.

I hope I saved you a lot of money. Your cartridge is good.

Are you certain that your (phono) preamp can handle a LOMC cartridge?

Since I have owned a high end table I have always let the sound quality as expressed in multiple reviews be my guide without concern to type… other than compatibility with my table. Each has been MC.

As to the reason why certain cartridges sounded better to me @laltik did a great summary as first post.

Also a happy Soundsmith Carmen 2 owner, if you check their web page there's lots of detail on different cartridge types.

edcyn, I just cannot agree with your hypothesis, based of course only on my own listening in my own system. A great cartridge is a great cartridge, regardless of its operating principle. A great cartridge will give you those things you describe. Many mid-priced LOMC cartridges cannot hold a candle to the best MM and MI types, in the very qualities you admire. Again, based on my own listening experiences. For example, you mention "tonality". In my experience many LOMC cartridges fail at conveying the tonality of a real piano (as opposed to an electric one). Many good MM cartridges do a better job, possibly because as Raul says, they tend to be high in compliance and thus can better reproduce the incredible dynamics of striking a piano key without a hint of mistracking which seems to produce a kind of distortion that makes acoustic pianos sound like electric ones. I don’t know this is the reason, but there is some logic to it.

Greetings 

A MC cartridge will give you the illusion that you are sitting in a concert hall 7 rows back dead center. A MM/MI will give you the illusion that you are in row 30.

There more to it but that is my simple explanation.

joe nies

How ’bout this for a quick & dirty explanation? With a Moving Coil cartridge there is more there there. More detail. Better imaging. More dimensionality. Moving Magnets & Moving Iron cartridges, by contrast, often deliver better tonality & easier listening.

While I use a MC in m y main system, I could be at least as happy with a vintage ADC that's in my 2nd system.