Jsman - Do a search in this forum and you will find you do not have to spend $700 to experience terrific LP playback from some of the very best MM cartridges.
Happy listening! |
Surely this discussion has been posted before. Sorry for not searching the archives first.
As obvious as it may seem, few discussions address the inherent dilemma one faces when comparing a MM to a MC cartridge. Regardless of any design and/or spec advantages one has over the other, evaluations of different types of cartridges (MM vs. MC) yield results that are difficult to call absolute or definitive. The need to switch to a different phonostage is the culprit. Consequently, you are unable to conclude that what you are hearing is due only to the differences between the cartridges.
Certainly a single phonostage can be used. However, most (if not all) conventional methods of overcoming this dilemma introduce additional variables. For MM phonostages, one can use a step up transformer or a prepreamp after the MC cartridge. On the other hand one can use a passive "attenuator" device after MM cartridges to reduce the output before feeding the signal to a MC phonostage.
It may still be possible to compare a MM and a MC cartridge, but only if one has a phonostage with identical mm and mc performance at any fixed overall [system] listening level. I am not an engineer, so those who have more technical know-how please chime in. Does such a phonostage exist? If so what tests does one perform to determine how similar or different a MM phonostage is from one designed for a MC without using a cartridge?
If this dilemma cannot be addressed, we have no choice but to treat MM and MC cartridges separate/independent from one another. I have my handful of MM cartridges that I cannot do without and for any given sonic parameter/criteria I can rank them. I can do the same for the superb MC transducers that I own. However, I cannot say if my favorite MM is better or not quite as good as my favorite MC, because the introduction of other components means that such an evaluation is not an apples-for-apples comparison. |
Stefanl - I found the thread you referred to:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1157059532&openusid&Stefanl&4&5&st350
However, you did not detail your complete analog setup when you were listening to the Denon MC and any changes you made when you went to the Ortofon MM.
You did indicate that you used a silver cable for the Denon and a VDH IC for the Ortofon, suggesting that at least three new variables were changed (transducer, phonostage or transformer, and IC) when you went from the MM to the MC cartridge. How can you possibly conclude that what you heard is due primarily to the differences in the performances of the cartridges alone? |
Jsman,
As to your quest, it is hard to go wrong with some of the MM cartridges already suggested and there are many more to try. The great part is that all of them are reasonably priced. So go for it and enjoy! This is not easily done with MC cartridges. Dont get me wrong. I enjoy having both types. However, unlike MMs, trying some of the best MCs can get very expensive. So let us know
it would be interesting to hear your evaluations of the MMs that impress you most.
I also agree with the suggestions to also look into a high quality phonostage. However, the sonic performance of such units within your system should be the among the major reasons for your purchase. Three of the top five phonostages I have used are one-off, prototype or beta units from highly regarded and talented enthusiasts. In fact I still own two of these quality units and use them regularly. None of these designers have ads in major print or online publications and none have a network of dealers. All of them were OK to have me try their units on a trial basis. If specs are a huge concern, then you can always have the units tested to verify the claims. They all provide excellent and timely, customer service and tech support. They have to. They much more to lose than a sale if they did otherwise. Sure they make products that are hand made, but they also happen to be often-consulted experts by the more highly visible companies. So do not overlook highly regarded products from such manufacturers. Forums such as these are a great place to learn about them. It is possible that persons suggesting otherwise have a vested interest (or at least I question their motive(s)) for doing so. |
Eldartford,
Is the better MM cartridge you upgraded to the Shure V15MR or another unit? When you compared MM and MC cartridges through your Tandberg how did you equalize the listening levels?
CD playback is great and has come long way since it was first introduced. However, no CD player to date has outperformed my analog playback. This includes some highly regarded and top-of-the-line CD players (modded or otherwise) that I was lucky to hear in my system recently and within the last two years.
As to MM/MC comparisons
In a resolving and musical system (using well recorded, uncompressed acoustic media) one should expect to hear the difference from one IC to another, especially if you often attend live acoustic performances. One should also expect that this is the case when you introduce new speaker cables, PCs, line conditioners, vibration control platforms, and tweaks like footers/couplers, etc. The introduction of different capacitors or attenuators within a preamp, for example, can noticeably affect the overall sonic presentation. Resistors are no exception.
The Tandberg sounds like a well designed preamp. However, despite the nearly identical MM and MC circuits (and despite the use of the same transistors), the small differences including the presence of the resistors in one phono section to address the outputs of MM vs. MC cartridges add variables that confounds the results of a comparison between these different types of transducers.
Consequently, one cannot conclude that the differences you hear is due only to the two types of cartridges. Moreover, it is not an easy task to verify or isolate the sonic effects introduced by the differences between the MM and the MC phonostages within the same unit. So even with the use of the Tandberg, an evaluation of a MM vs. a MC cartridge is not an apples-to-apples comparison. |
Audiofeil - What amateurs and what unreal specifications are you referring to? The author of this thread and perhaps a few members may want to know.
The "amateurs" that I have dealt with ARE responsible retailers and they aim to be well established. And if their products are given the same playing field perhaps they have a chance of being around next month, next year, and next decade.
The list you provide of companies that are no longer in business is comprehensive. I am no historian and have no inside scoop, but just as much as these "amateurs" can drop the ball on customer service, product support and make false specification claims, so can established manufacturers.
To keep referring to them globally as "amateurs" is also puzzling. Email me privately and I'd be glad to reveal the names of those with whom I have dealt. They are an impressive list of respected engineers and designers. You would be proud to represent their products. I refrain from identifying them here seeing how people are sensitive toward anything that can be misinterpreted as advertising. Additionally, if I were them I would not want my name associated within the context of this discussion. |
Stefanl - Thanks for your clarification. Sounds like you have tried a number of MM and MC cartridges. I used MCs exclusively, until I tried my first MM in late 2006. Since then I have identified at least a handful of MMs that I cannot do without!
I have a couple of follow-up questions for you:
1) What are the relative outputs of the Denon 103 MC and the Ortofon VMS 20 Mk11? Sorry I could look these up, but I a few errands to complete before the day ends.
2) When you switched from the Denon to the Ortofon please explain how you equalized the volume levels?
3) What impedance load was used with the Denon and what capacitance did you use for the Ortofon?
4) Among the Ortofon, Linns, AT and other cartridges you've used, what are your absolute favorites?
Regards! |
Jsman - Thanks for posting your questions. It highlighted this very important discission of determining if one can objectively evaluate a MM vs. a MC cartridge.
Congratulations on your new TT purchase. I am glad you started a new thread to obtain more MM and MC cartridge suggestions. The cartridges already mentioned in this thread are great starting points. Let us know your findings. |
Stefanl - I was referring to the voltage outputs of each cartridge @ 1Khz, 50 mm/sec. From the informative database, the Denon DL103 is a MC unit whose output ranges from 0.12 - 0.3 mV vs. 5.0 mV for the moving iron Ortofon VMS-20 E Mk II.
I originally thought your phonostage is one that is either a MM or a MC. I see now that the phonostage you are using has a MM and a MC section. Thanks for clarifying. So essentially the capabilities of your phonostage is the same as that for Eldartford and others whose phonostages have a MM and MC settings. One of my phonostages also has this capability.
What is your phonostage? It would be interesting to know the design of its MM and the MC sections. I also want to know to what extent you have investigated that the performance of both sections is identical so that neither the MM nor the MC stages introduce an effect that confounds the MM vs. MC comparison. In other words, how do you know that the differences you hear when comparing MM and MC cartridges are only due to the distinct sonic signature of each cartridge? In my original post and in my responses to Eldartford I listed some of the difficulties one runs into when trying to objectively interpret the results of a MM vs. a MC cartridge comparison.
I would jump at the chance to AB MM/MC cartridges the way we can with cables and PCs, for example, with all other components being equal. In such evaluations only one variable changes -- the unit being investigated -- for a true apples-to-apples comparison. For other components like CD players, for example, it can also be done. However, it is not as simple because of the need to be sure that the volume levels are the same for each unit.
It would be great to hear from the designers.
Respectfully, |
Eldartford - I know of several phonostages that have a MM stage that is completely separate from the MC stage in a single chassis.
As to the other approaches you suggest, the additional booster stage or the manner in which the gain is changed concerns me.
Regardless of the approach, the inherent sonic differences between a MM or MC phonostage (even if these are independent from one another within the same unit) are not easily determined.
Here is a long shot: Just thinking out loud here so pardon the lack of clarity... I suppose two sets of a few musical passages and test tones can be recorded on (heaven forbid) a CD. The volume differences from one set to another must be set appropriately to avoid overloading the respective stage for which they are meant to be used. This can then serve as the input to a phonostage. I know of burn-in CD that have appropriate output levels that allow you to feed line level output directly to the phonostage.
I realize that one can argue that this may also not be a one-to-one comparison. This may be the case, but if the volume differences are well executed on such a CD to achieve identical musical passages when played back though the system, this may be an acceptable (but definitely unconventional) way to determine the sonic differences of a MM vs. MC stage without using a cartridge. This could be as close as we can get to determining the sonic differences between the two stages (so long as the overall volume levels are the equalized when switching from one stage to another).
If after such an exercise you determine that your MM and MC stage have similar performance, then you can confidently interpret the results of a MM vs. MC comparison. So does such a test CD exist?
Regards, |
Frankm1 - Psychicanimal's response beat me to it. Some of my recommendations would have included a few of the MM cartridges Rauliruegas mentions in his thread. The Grace F9E is superb and the EDR.9 is very good. This list is a moving target for me currently since I am relatively new to MM cartridges. I used MCs exclusive until nearly two years ago when I first heard a MM.
I have not yet tried the top shelf Stantons or Linns. The Ortofon MI are also intruiguing.
|
Rauliruegas - I saw your last post before it was deleted. Lets try and discuss this topic without presenting something that can be interpreted as crossing over the controversial "advertisement" line. I think we can do it, yes?
I admire all attempts a manufacturer takes in making sure the component is made with the very best parts with much attention toward quality construction and design. Your focus on important specifications like RIAA accuracy, frequency range, signal to noise ratio, distortion level, crosstalk, slew rate, etc., along with well defined goals for sound reproduction are great.
However, even within this context, completely separate MM and MC stages within a single chassis with identical specs do not necessarily yield the same performance. This is the case for nearly identical circuits with only slight differences by way of additional booster stage or via a gain control. It is even more of a challenge for a preamp like yours when completely different parts are used. Specs alone (identical or not) do not predict the sonic signature of a component.
It would be interesting to know how you determined the sonic characteristics of the MM stage is identical to the MC stage without using different cartridges or, more generally, without adding a new variable.
Respectfully, |
Jsman - So what MM and MC cartridges have you deciced to try? Do you plan on using the Rogue or something else? |
Jsman - The output of the Dyna 20X may allow you to use either the MC or MM sections of your preamp. It would be interesting to see which phonostage you prefer.
If you also use a JMW arm with your Scoutmaster, then take advantage of being able to compare cartridges via interchangable armwands. So when you have another, identical armwand you can see if you enjoy your new MC more than your AT 440MLa. |
Hi again Raul,
In response to your 05-05-07 post, I do not have direct experience with simultaneous play of MM/MC cartridges on the same track. This is a nice feature to have and it would be interesting to hear a cartridge/stage combo in this manner. However, I can see some being concerned about the effect that one cartridge/arm combo has toward the other during simultaneous playback -- adding still one more variable to account for.
The author of this thread asked a question about using MM cartridges and going back to doing so after trying MCs. This question and the replies posted can potentially be misleading and may be better interpreted by clarifying that the preferences expressed by members involve more than just the sonic performances of the cartridges alone.
As to the test CD idea I did say that what I proposed is a long shot and that I was just thinking out loud. Of course this process requires some inverse RIAA step prior to routing the signals to the preamp. The set-up you suggest -- MM and MC cartridges with a multi arm tt through separate MM and MC stages in one chassis -- is a good one. However, this still does not allow one to separately determine the sonic contributions of the MM or MC stages. Although, not perfect, the test CD idea is more ideal than even the convenient set up you suggest when one wants to first evaluate the sonics of his MM vs. MC phonostage.
Here is yet another (admittedly expensive) idea... a TT using laser technology to extract music from the grooves may serve as a source to be able to compare the a MM vs MC phonostage. If such a unit already puts out line level signals, then it would be easy to add a well designed inverse RIAA to feed the phono sections being compared. Despite the need to have to also apply a neutral attenuation/gain stage to equalize the signals, this approach had one advantage over the test CD idea. It does not require an AD/DA conversion as all signal processing is done in the analog domain.
As you and Frankm1 already posted, ultimately and as far as day to day use is concerned, it really does not matter. In fact, I also hinted similarly near the end of my second post to this thread. Although obvious, it is easy to overlook that a comparison of a MM and MC cartridge is one that involves an evaluation of a specific cartridge/phonostage combo vs. another. In such a setting, we have to accept that we cannot conclude that a MC is better than a MM, or vice versa, as the differences heard is partially attributable to the performances differences between the phono sections used.
So the attempt to investigate how one can characterize the sonic differences between MM and MC phonostages is consistent with trying to keep all other factors equal. Once accomplished and an equivalent performing MM and MC stage (with identical sonic signatures) is found, it can serve as a great tool. THIS IS ONLY IMPORTANT if one aims to truly and definitively determine the real differences between a MM and a MC cartridge.So it would still be interesting to hear excellent, creative, or crazy suggestions on how one can compare (purely from an academic point of view) the sonics/performance of a MM vs a MC phonostage. It would be great to have a way to factor out this variable so it does not cloud a MM/MC cartridge comparison.
Regards, |
Jsman - I went from MC to MM and have decided to keep both. Although I am newer to MMs, I can say that I am glad I have gotten to experience them. I enjoy the strengths of each type of transducer. Since you have a phonostage that has a MM and an MC section, you have an excellent oportunity to find out for yourself which type you prefer through the Rogue.
As to whether or not I like an MC over a MM... :-) My posts should show where I stand on arriving at an answer to this question, which upon further inspection is a lot more involved than it appears initially. |
