MC cartridges are generally considered the better sounding option because of their lower moving mass. They are better at picking up details in the record grooves and can therefore reproduce the fine details in the music with higher accuracy than MM cartridges. The differences between MM and MC are more apparent when listening to very high quality recordings on a high-end turntable, a good quality MC cartridge like Hana ML will produce more precise soundstage and finer details than a similarly price MM cartridge.
This is not to say that MM cart can’t sound good. It is my opinion and understanding that MM cartridges with their higher moving mass, have a tendency to “smooth out” the fine details. For affordable low-end turntables, MM cart is the most obvious choice :-)
And then there is difference of signal output levels. The typical signal output from a MM cartridge is 5mV. While a MC cartridge typically outputs 0.2mV.
It all depends on how the cartridge is voiced. The different types do have slightly different characteristics, but a MM can be really warm or very bright. The same holds true for other types of cartridges. Some are very neutral, while others are voiced to be more euphonic.
I prefer MC cartridges, as they do tend to present more details and have less "grain", however I'm currently enjoying my Soundsmith Aida II MI cartridge, which comes very close to the performance of my much more expensive MC cartridges.
Most MC carts require more gain due to lower output. They are not all "typically" .2mV. Many are in the .4 - 5mV range. There are high output MC cartridges that don't require as much gain (usually around 2.0 mV) and may work with a MM phono stage, but typically don't sound quite as good as their low output versions.
It's important to match the cartridge to your tonearm and phono stage. A well matched MM may sound better than a similarly priced MC if not matched well to the rest of your analog chain and your listening tastes.
In other words, MC, MI, MM is just one factor to consider when purchasing a cartridge.
look at it this way; almost 100% of the design efforts in the last 15-20 years have been advancing moving coils. why? they have some substantial advantages in performance. and phono preamps have got much quieter too, allowing for optimization of low output moving coils.
that said there are plenty of great sounding examples of other types, but overall moving coils rule today.
Consider the Rega, since you won't have to fuss with adjustments/alignment. 3 screws, set the tracking and you're ready to spin. If you get the bug, now you can consider doing the "investment" table/cart.
Dear @lalitk@rvpiano : " They are better at picking up details in the record grooves and can therefore reproduce the fine details in the music.."
No, that's not true because what any cartridge pick up ( everything the same. ) depends mainly of its tracking abilities that depends mainly of its compliance. Normally MM cartridges are high compliance designs and has inherent better tracking abilities than LOMC low to medium compliance cartridges, so MM can pick up more signal information recorded on those LP grooves.
Cartridge motors for MC/MM/MI are way different and one of the main differences comes from there.
LOMC has better overall detail and normally are better at both frequency extremes with a tigther bass range ( less overhang down there ) and transparency at the other extreme and with a better bass range the bass range harmonics are better and helps to improves the mid range quality level and the the high frequencies.
From where comes that better quality? mainly from the really smal/tiny coil windings in the MC motor where happens the transducer operation, it's trough those coil wires where the sensitive signal pass through and in MC the coil path is way shorter than in MM/MI that's why its low and very low output that in theory as lower the output as better signal quality but all has trade offs and here the trade off with LOMC cartridges is precisely its low output that needs higher gain in the phono stages but even that the quality of its signal is better. LOMC has other inherent advantages that are that the cartridge is no sensitive to load impedance and to load capacitance where the other designa are, yes this is not what you asking for.
The cartridge motor principle in MC/MM/MI it does not changed over the last 50+ years.
@rvpiano now you have an opinion of the difference on what you listen through a LOMC against the other cartridge motor different designs.
Can the MM/MI designs even the LOMC designs quality performance? this could be for other thread and exist several opinions about in the long MM thread but this subject is not what you asking for.
My SoundSmith Sussurro MI is the most overall satisfying cartridge I've had over the years. Has a natural presentation yet is still dynamic with excellent resolving ability.
All qualitative generalizations on this subject are shaky. My experience only says that High Output MC cartridges don't usually compete well with MM, MI, or LOMC types. If you like the LOMC "sound", don't overlook MI types which are in the same vein and sometimes a better bang for the buck. (Notice I stuck in several general statements there while first having warned you about generalizations.)
On the basis of some of the comments here, what I’ve read in reviews, and most importantly, the sound I’m looking for, I’m probably going to switch to a LOMC cartridge: the Hana ML. It seems to be the best choice for me, and I can get a deal on it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 @mikelavigneif 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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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 @lewmpoint 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.
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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
