Who needs a MM cartridge type when we have MC?


Dear friends: who really needs an MM type phono cartridge?, well I will try to share/explain with you what are my experiences about and I hope too that many of you could enrich the topic/subject with your own experiences.

For some years ( in this forum ) and time to time I posted that the MM type cartridge quality sound is better than we know or that we think and like four months ago I start a thread about: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1173550723&openusid&zzRauliruegas&4&5#Rauliruegas where we analyse some MM type cartridges.

Well, in the last 10-12 months I buy something like 30+ different MM type phono cartridges ( you can read in my virtual system which ones. ) and I’m still doing it. The purpose of this fact ( “ buy it “ ) is for one way to confirm or not if really those MM type cartridges are good for us ( music lovers ) and at the same time learn about MM vs MC cartridges, as a fact I learn many things other than MM/MC cartridge subject.

If we take a look to the Agon analog members at least 90% of them use ( only ) MC phono cartridges, if we take a look to the “ professional reviewers “ ( TAS, Stereophile, Positive Feedback, Enjoy the Music, etc, etc, ) 95% ( at least ) of them use only MC cartridges ( well I know that for example: REG and NG of TAS and RJR of Stereophile use only MM type cartridges!!!!!!!! ) , if we take a look to the phono cartridge manufacturers more than 90% of them build/design for MC cartridges and if you speak with audio dealers almost all will tell you that the MC cartridges is the way to go.

So, who are wrong/right, the few ( like me ) that speak that the MM type is a very good alternative or the “ whole “ cartridge industry that think and support the MC cartridge only valid alternative?

IMHO I think that both groups are not totally wrong/right and that the subject is not who is wrong/right but that the subject is : KNOW-HOW or NON KNOW-HOW about.

Many years ago when I was introduced to the “ high end “ the cartridges were almost MM type ones: Shure, Stanton, Pickering, Empire, etc, etc. In those time I remember that one dealer told me that if I really want to be nearest to the music I have to buy the Empire 4000 D ( they say for 4-channel reproduction as well. ) and this was truly my first encounter with a “ high end cartridge “, I buy the 4000D I for 70.00 dls ( I can’t pay 150.00 for the D III. ), btw the specs of these Empire cartridges were impressive even today, look: frequency response: 5-50,000Hz, channel separation: 35db, tracking force range: 0.25grs to 1.25grs!!!!!!!!, just impressive, but there are some cartridges which frequency response goes to 100,000Hz!!!!!!!!!!

I start to learn about and I follow to buying other MM type cartridges ( in those times I never imagine nothing about MC cartridges: I don’t imagine of its existence!!!. ) like AKG, Micro Acoustics, ADC, B&O, Audio Technica, Sonus, etc, etc.

Years latter the same dealer told me about the MC marvelous cartridges and he introduce me to the Denon-103 following with the 103-D and the Fulton High performance, so I start to buy and hear MC cartridges. I start to read audio magazines about either cartridge type: MM and Mc ones.

I have to make changes in my audio system ( because of the low output of the MC cartridges and because I was learning how to improve the performance of my audio system ) and I follow what the reviewers/audio dealers “ speak “ about, I was un-experienced !!!!!!!, I was learning ( well I’m yet. ).

I can tell you many good/bad histories about but I don’t want that the thread was/is boring for you, so please let me tell you what I learn and where I’m standing today about:

over the years I invested thousands of dollars on several top “ high end “ MC cartridges, from the Sumiko Celebration passing for Lyras, Koetsu, Van denHul, to Allaerts ones ( just name it and I can tell that I own or owned. ), what I already invest on MC cartridges represent almost 70-80% price of my audio system.

Suddenly I stop buying MC cartridges and decide to start again with some of the MM type cartridges that I already own and what I heard motivate me to start the search for more of those “ hidden jewels “ that are ( here and now ) the MM phono cartridges and learn why are so good and how to obtain its best quality sound reproduction ( as a fact I learn many things other than MM cartridge about. ).

I don’t start this “ finding “ like a contest between MC and MM type cartridges.
The MC cartridges are as good as we already know and this is not the subject here, the subject is about MM type quality performance and how achieve the best with those cartridges.

First than all I try to identify and understand the most important characteristics ( and what they “ means “. ) of the MM type cartridges ( something that in part I already have it because our phonolinepreamp design needs. ) and its differences with the MC ones.

Well, first than all is that are high output cartridges, very high compliance ones ( 50cu is not rare. ), low or very low tracking force ones, likes 47kOhms and up, susceptible to some capacitance changes, user stylus replacement, sometimes we can use a different replacement stylus making an improvement with out the necessity to buy the next top model in the cartridge line , low and very low weight cartridges, almost all of them are build of plastic material with aluminum cantilever and with eliptical or “ old “ line contact stylus ( shibata ) ( here we don’t find: Jade/Coral/Titanium/etc, bodies or sophisticated build material cantilevers and sophisticated stylus shape. ), very very… what I say? Extremely low prices from 40.00 to 300.00 dls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, well one of my cartridges I buy it for 8.99 dls ( one month ago ): WOW!!!!!!, so any one of you can/could have/buy ten to twenty MM cartridges for the price of one of the MC cartridge you own today and the good notice is that is a chance that those 10-20 MM type cartridges even the quality performance of your MC cartridge or beat it.

Other characteristics is that the builders show how proud they were/are on its MM type cartridges design, almost all those cartridges comes with a first rate box, comes with charts/diagrams of its frequency response and cartridge channel separation ( where they tell us which test recording use it, with which VTF, at which temperature, etc, etc. ), comes with a very wide explanation of the why’s and how’s of its design and the usual explanation to mount the cartridge along with a very wide list of specifications ( that were the envy of any of today MC ones where sometimes we really don’t know nothing about. ), comes with a set of screws/nuts, comes with a stylus brush and even with stylus cleaning fluid!!!!!!!!!, my GOD. Well, there are cartridges like the Supex SM 100MK2 that comes with two different stylus!!!! One with spherical and one with elliptical/shibata shape and dear friends all those in the same low low price!!!!!!!!!!!

Almost all the cartridges I own you can find it through Ebay and Agon and through cartridge dealers and don’t worry if you loose/broke the stylus cartridge or you find the cartridge but with out stylus, you always can/could find the stylus replacement, no problem about there are some stylus and cartridge sources.

When I’m talking about MM type cartridges I’m refer to different types: moving magnet, moving iron, moving flux, electret, variable reluctance, induced magnet, etc, etc. ( here is not the place to explain the differences on all those MM type cartridges. Maybe on other future thread. ).

I made all my very long ( time consuming ) cartridge tests using four different TT’s: Acoustic Signature Analog One MK2, Micro Seiki RX-5000, Luxman PD 310 and Technics SP-10 MK2, I use only removable headshell S and J shape tonearms with 15mm on overhang, I use different material build/ shape design /weight headshells. I test each cartridge in at least three different tonearms and some times in 3-4 different headshells till I find the “ right “ match where the cartridge perform the best, no I’m not saying that I already finish or that I already find the “ perfect “ match: cartridge/headshell/tonearm but I think I’m near that ideal target.

Through my testing experience I learn/ confirm that trying to find the right tonearm/headshell for any cartridge is well worth the effort and more important that be changing the TT. When I switch from a TT to another different one the changes on the quality cartridge performance were/are minimal in comparison to a change in the tonearm/headshell, this fact was consistent with any of those cartridges including MC ones.

So after the Phonolinepreamplifier IMHO the tonearm/headshell match for any cartridge is the more important subject, it is so important and complex that in the same tonearm ( with the same headshell wires ) but with different headshell ( even when the headshell weight were the same ) shape or build material headshell the quality cartridge performance can/could be way different.

All those experiences told me that chances are that the cartridge that you own ( MC or MM ) is not performing at its best because chances are that the tonearm you own is not the best match for that cartridge!!!!!!, so imagine what do you can/could hear when your cartridge is or will be on the right tonearm???!!!!!!!!, IMHO there are ( till today ) no single ( any type at any price ) perfect universal tonearm. IMHO there is no “ the best tonearm “, what exist or could exist is a “ best tonearm match for “ that “ cartridge “, but that’s all. Of course that are “ lucky “ tonearms that are very good match for more than one cartridge but don’t for every single cartridge.

I posted several times that I’m not a tonearm collector, that I own all those tonearms to have alternatives for my cartridges and with removable headshells my 15 tonearms are really like 100+ tonearms : a very wide options/alternatives for almost any cartridge!!!!!!

You can find several of these MM type cartridges new brand or NOS like: Ortofon, Nagaoka, Audio Technica, Astatic, B&O, Rega, Empire, Sonus Reson,Goldring,Clearaudio, Grado, Shelter, Garrot, etc. and all of them second hand in very good operational condition. As a fact I buy two and even three cartridges of the same model in some of the cartridges ( so right now I have some samples that I think I don’t use any more. ) to prevent that one of them arrive in non operational condition but I’m glad to say that all them arrive in very fine conditions. I buy one or two of the cartridges with no stylus or with the stylus out of work but I don’t have any trouble because I could find the stylus replacement on different sources and in some case the original new replacement.

All these buy/find cartridges was very time consuming and we have to have a lot of patience and a little lucky to obtain what we are looking for but I can asure you that is worth of it.

Ok, I think it is time to share my performance cartridge findings:

first we have to have a Phonolinepreamplifier with a very good MM phono stage ( at least at the same level that the MC stage. ). I’m lucky because my Phonolinepreamplifier has two independent phono stages, one for the MM and one for MC: both were designed for the specifics needs of each cartridge type, MM or MC that have different needs.

we need a decent TT and decent tonearm.

we have to load the MM cartridges not at 47K but at 100K ( at least 75K not less. ).

I find that using 47K ( a standard manufacture recommendation ) prevent to obtain the best quality performance, 100K make the difference. I try this with all those MM type cartridges and in all of them I achieve the best performance with 100K load impedance.

I find too that using the manufacturer capacitance advise not always is for the better, till “ the end of the day “ I find that between 100-150pf ( total capacitance including cable capacitance. ) all the cartridges performs at its best.

I start to change the load impedance on MM cartridges like a synonymous that what many of us made with MC cartridges where we try with different load impedance values, latter I read on the Empire 4000 DIII that the precise load impedance must be 100kOhms and in a white paper of some Grace F9 tests the used impedance value was 100kOhms, the same that I read on other operational MM cartridge manual and my ears tell/told me that 100kOhms is “ the value “.

Before I go on I want to remember you that several of those MM type cartridges ( almost all ) were build more than 30+ years ago!!!!!!!! and today performs at the same top quality level than today MC/MM top quality cartridges!!!!!, any brand at any price and in some ways beat it.

I use 4-5 recordings that I know very well and that give me the right answers to know that any cartridge is performing at its best or near it. Many times what I heard through those recordings were fine: everything were on target however the music don’t come “ alive “ don’t “ tell me “ nothing, I was not feeling the emotion that the music can communicate. In those cartridge cases I have to try it in other tonearm and/or with a different headshell till the “ feelings comes “ and only when this was achieved I then was satisfied.

All the tests were made with a volume level ( SPL ) where the recording “ shines “ and comes alive like in a live event. Sometimes changing the volume level by 1-1.5 db fixed everything.

Of course that the people that in a regular manner attend to hear/heard live music it will be more easy to know when something is right or wrong.

Well, Raul go on!!: one characteristic on the MM cartridges set-up was that almost all them likes to ride with a positive ( little/small ) VTA only the Grace Ruby and F9E and Sonus Gold Blue likes a negative VTA , on the other hand with the Nagaoka MP 50 Super and the Ortofon’s I use a flat VTA.

Regarding the VTF I use the manufacturer advise and sometimes 0.1+grs.
Of course that I made fine tuning through moderate changes in the Azymuth and for anti-skate I use between half/third VTF value.

I use different material build headshells: aluminum, composite aluminum, magnesium, composite magnesium, ceramic, wood and non magnetic stainless steel, these cartridges comes from Audio Technica, Denon, SAEC, Technics, Fidelity Research, Belldream, Grace, Nagaoka, Koetsu, Dynavector and Audiocraft.
All of them but the wood made ( the wood does not likes to any cartridge. ) very good job . It is here where a cartridge could seems good or very good depending of the headshell where is mounted and the tonearm.
Example, I have hard time with some of those cartridge like the Audio Technica AT 20SS where its performance was on the bright sound that sometimes was harsh till I find that the ceramic headshell was/is the right match now this cartridge perform beautiful, something similar happen with the Nagaoka ( Jeweltone in Japan ), Shelter , Grace, Garrot , AKG and B&O but when were mounted in the right headshell/tonearm all them performs great.

Other things that you have to know: I use two different cooper headshell wires, both very neutral and with similar “ sound “ and I use three different phono cables, all three very neutral too with some differences on the sound performance but nothing that “ makes the difference “ on the quality sound of any of my cartridges, either MM or MC, btw I know extremely well those phono cables: Analysis Plus, Harmonic Technologies and Kimber Kable ( all three the silver models. ), finally and don’t less important is that those phono cables were wired in balanced way to take advantage of my Phonolinepreamp fully balanced design.

What do you note the first time you put your MM cartridge on the record?, well a total absence of noise/hum or the like that you have through your MC cartridges ( and that is not a cartridge problem but a Phonolinepreamp problem due to the low output of the MC cartridges. ), a dead silent black ( beautiful ) soundstage where appear the MUSIC performance, this experience alone is worth it.

The second and maybe the most important MM cartridge characteristic is that you hear/heard the MUSIC flow/run extremely “ easy “ with no distracting sound distortions/artifacts ( I can’t explain exactly this very important subject but it is wonderful ) even you can hear/heard “ sounds/notes “ that you never before heard it and you even don’t know exist on the recording: what a experience!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO I think that the MUSIC run so easily through a MM cartridge due ( between other facts ) to its very high compliance characteristic on almost any MM cartridge.

This very high compliance permit ( between other things like be less sensitive to out-center hole records. ) to these cartridges stay always in contact with the groove and never loose that groove contact not even on the grooves that were recorded at very high velocity, something that a low/medium cartridge compliance can’t achieve, due to this low/medium compliance characteristic the MC cartridges loose ( time to time and depending of the recorded velocity ) groove contact ( minute extremely minute loose contact, but exist. ) and the quality sound performance suffer about and we can hear it, the same pass with the MC cartridges when are playing the inner grooves on a record instead the very high compliance MM cartridges because has better tracking drive perform better than the MC ones at inner record grooves and here too we can hear it.

Btw, some Agoners ask very worried ( on more than one Agon thread ) that its cartridge can’t track ( clean ) the cannons on the 1812 Telarc recording and usually the answers that different people posted were something like this: “””” don’t worry about other than that Telarc recording no other commercial recording comes recorded at that so high velocity, if you don’t have trouble with other of your LP’s then stay calm. “””””

Well, this standard answer have some “ sense “ but the people ( like me ) that already has/have the experience to hear/heard a MM or MC ( like the Ortofon MC 2000 or the Denon DS1, high compliance Mc cartridges. ) cartridge that pass easily the 1812 Telarc test can tell us that those cartridges make a huge difference in the quality sound reproduction of any “ normal “ recording, so it is more important that what we think to have a better cartridge tracking groove drive!!!!

There are many facts around the MM cartridge subject but till we try it in the right set-up it will be ( for some people ) difficult to understand “ those beauties “. Something that I admire on the MM cartridges is how ( almost all of them ) they handle the frequency extremes: the low bass with the right pitch/heft/tight/vivid with no colorations of the kind “ organic !!” that many non know-how people speak about, the highs neutral/open/transparent/airy believable like the live music, these frequency extremes handle make that the MUSIC flow in our minds to wake up our feelings/emotions that at “ the end of the day “ is all what a music lover is looking for.
These not means that these cartridges don’t shine on the midrange because they do too and they have very good soundstage but here is more system/room dependent.

Well we have a very good alternative on the ( very low price ) MM type cartridges to achieve that music target and I’m not saying that you change your MC cartridge for a MM one: NO, what I’m trying to tell you is that it is worth to have ( as many you can buy/find ) the MM type cartridges along your MC ones

I want to tell you that I can live happy with any of those MM cartridges and I’m not saying with this that all of them perform at the same quality level NO!! what I’m saying is that all of them are very good performers, all of them approach you nearest to the music.

If you ask me which one is the best I can tell you that this will be a very hard “ call “ an almost impossible to decide, I think that I can make a difference between the very good ones and the stellar ones where IMHO the next cartridges belongs to this group:

Audio Technica ATML 170 and 180 OCC, Grado The Amber Tribute, Grace Ruby, Garrot P77, Nagaoka MP-50 Super, B&O MMC2 and MMC20CL, AKG P8ES SuperNova, Reson Reca ,Astatic MF-100 and Stanton LZS 981.

There are other ones that are really near this group: ADC Astrion, Supex MF-100 MK2, Micro Acoustics MA630/830, Empire 750 LTD and 600LAC, Sonus Dimension 5, Astatic MF-200 and 300 and the Acutex 320III.

The other ones are very good too but less refined ones.
I try too ( owned or borrowed for a friend ) the Shure IV and VMR, Music maker 2-3 and Clearaudio Virtuoso/Maestro, from these I could recommended only the Clearaudios the Shure’s and Music Maker are almost mediocre ones performers.
I forgot I try to the B&O Soundsmith versions, well this cartridges are good but are different from the original B&O ( that I prefer. ) due that the Sounsmith ones use ruby cantilevers instead the original B&O sapphire ones that for what I tested sounds more natural and less hi-fi like the ruby ones.

What I learn other that the importance on the quality sound reproduction through MM type cartridges?, well that unfortunately the advance in the design looking for a better quality cartridge performers advance almost nothing either on MM and MC cartridges.

Yes, today we have different/advanced body cartridge materials, different cantilever build materials, different stylus shape/profile, different, different,,,,different, but the quality sound reproduction is almost the same with cartridges build 30+ years ago and this is a fact. The same occur with TT’s and tonearms. Is sad to speak in this way but it is what we have today. Please, I’m not saying that some cartridges designs don’t grow up because they did it, example: Koetsu they today Koetsu’s are better performers that the old ones but against other cartridges the Koetsu ones don’t advance and many old and today cartridges MM/MC beat them easily.

Where I think the audio industry grow-up for the better are in electronic audio items ( like the Phonolinepreamps ), speakers and room treatment, but this is only my HO.

I know that there are many things that I forgot and many other things that we have to think about but what you can read here is IMHO a good point to start.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas
Dear Fleib: Thank you. Now I see why Halcro and this guy are on agreement.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards Fleib and Raul,
TK-10ML
Can you tell if the stylus assembly of my cartridge is also unoriginal?
This would explain, as Raul suggests, the 'sound' I was unimpressed by?
Good choice Chris,
Avalon is one of my favourites. Well recorded, fine frequency extensions and convincing soundstage. Damn fine music as well IMO :^)
His album "Boys and Girls" is just as good IMHO and gets plenty of rotation chez Halcro :^)
Halcro,
I received my AT7V 2 weeks ago. It is a beautiful cartridge with that azure blue stylus. I have not mounted it yet as I am still enjoying the AT20 SL with AT20SS stylus mounted on my Triplanar. Just today I decided to removed the stylus guard which I thought was innocuous to the cartridges performance. The result was not subtle. The AT20 became louder with added clarity. In time I will post my findings on the AT7V. I still have many more records to enjoy with the AT20Sl before I jump ship.
Regards,
Greetings all,
I've been reading this thread for quite some time but have had nothing useful to add until now. Halcro, though I don't know about the originality of your TK-10ML stylus, I happened to notice that your picture of the AT20SS features a red stylus. AFAIK, the ATN15SS and ATN20SS originals were both black. Shades of red were used on ATN13 and ATN14 and maybe some aftermarket stylii.

Of course I could be wrong, but my personal AT15SS stylus and the replacement lpgear NOS ATN20SS are both black. :-) And if you already now about this, well, never mind then :D

Regards, Bill
Hello Halcro, I have the at7v. I had been listening to the TK7su for a long time, and it was a shock at first. It is more lively, and moves you closer to the stage. The first 10 hours were all over the place but settled in nicely. That, you are there front row sound. Good solid bass and great midrange.

After a week or so I installed an at155lc. The at7v is very good but has a ever so slight edge in the highs to me.( I seem to like more laidback highs) The 155lc smooths out those highs and opens up the soundstage as Timeltel mentioned.

I will have to try it again but the at140lc was dead sounding.

Thanks to both Timeltel and yourself for bringing this to our attention.

Danny
Welcome to the thread Bill,
Yes, the photo I uploaded of my AT-20SS had a non-original (red) replacement stylus assembly which is how I purchased it.
I however bought a NOS 20SS (black) stylus assembly from LPGear with which I listened exclusively.
Thanks for the info.
Regards, Fleib: Correct on the TK9LC, my OEM stylus had the red block. At replacement time Bluz Broz illustrated the LC replacement as red, the AT's were all bright alu., as was (IIRC) their TK10ML replacement. Sometimes information from this site needs confirmation but on this one I believe they got it right. For the AT series it seems they were of the philosophy the ATN22 was "one size fits all".

As much as I enjoy the Signet line, the "lowly" AT22 cart with genuine OEM stylus performs more to my satisfaction. As far as I can determine, the only difference is in the AT's additional 1 gm (+-) mass and increased surface area of the cartridge mount.

Henry, the TK10ML listing is a very popular subject. Have you considered freelancing for the ad industry? ;-).

Peace,
Hi Danny,
Great feedback on the 7V thanks.
It seems your 'run-in' experiences match mine and I agree with you on the contrasts with the TK-7SU.
The qualities you hear with the 155LC stylus appear to match Timeltel's which prompts me to try one of my three other 155LC assemblies in lieu of the one I originally slipped in?
As we've learnt from the great contributions here...........the variations in styli assemblies can have a profound impact on the sound presentation of any particular cartridge?
Cheers
Henry
Dear Professor,
It has sometimes been intimated that my various comments can be 'on the warm side' of neutral which of course makes me a prime candidate for the advertising industry :^)
I'm looking forward to the delivery of my TK-7Ea in order to transform it into a 7LCa.
It will then be a heavyweight championship clash that my neighbours are dreading :^{
Cheers
Henry
Re: TK10ML on ebay
According to my Signet TK9E manual and original body of TK9E with broken cantilever. The stylus mounting block is red (real color is anodized red-burgundy).

I can re-assert that TK9-TK10 series were constructed very similarly to AT22-23-24-25. Both with toroidal coils. But my AT24 stylus really blossomed on AT24 body.
Regards, Halcro: Henry, that is exactly the kind of enthusiasm we "kneed". Oops.

Peace,
Hi Folks,

I am the new caretaker for Travbrows TK9/ATN25...

So it is staying "in the family"... rather looking forward to it...
I actually had not conneted the dots in my mind between username here and ebay seller name (which are the same!).

It went for a reasonable price, and I could not resist.... (a terrible weakness I have...)
I can resist anything except temptation.

bye for now

David
Well Professor,
I stayed awake all night hoping to come up with a riposte as good as yours...........and I failed :^{
I kneel in deference?
AT-7V vs TK7_ On LpGear which imports the 7V, it's intimated that these are the same generators. It could very well be. There were 2 series of these Signets. The first has tips that can be exchanged with a 15/20 series, like the SS. The 2nd has styli that can be exchanged with the modern 120 series, with the exception of using the Signet stylus on a modern AT. The plastic holder prevents it from seating properly. Remember the styli are quite different and you have to use the VTF etc of the stylus, if not the original.

This brings up another aspect. IMO the stylus guard can only hurt performance and is better left off. I think the same is true for the whole plastic stylus holder called wings. If you trim this away and use it like a Clearaudio, I think it sounds better. You might want to use a bit of tack on the plastic plug at the bottom of the body.
Dear Siniy123: Thank you.

I think that with the very top cartridges the cartridge will perform best with its original stylus that was the way was designed to achieve the manufacturer targets.

As I told you I will take time to test again my AT-24 and will report about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
raul,
I hope that you have AT24 owners manual and can shed more light on the specs. Because the spects from these 2 sources are different:

http://www.audiostereo.pl/uploads/old/post-3405-100000853%201170278536.JPG

and

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://20cheaddatebase.web.fc2.com/needie/NDAtechnica/AT-24.html&ei=p7IITsTNA7PUiAKJnanODQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://20cheaddatebase.web.fc2.com/needie/NDAtechnica/AT-24.html%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3D1Sa%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26prmd%3Divns
Dear Fleib: 7V-TK7: I bought the TK7s to be aware and confirm or not what other people reported about but unfortunately I did it with out take in count ( I own so many cartridges that I can't remember ( a priori ) every single one. ) that I already own the 7V.

From here I agree on all your post:

yes stylus guard almost always degrade the cartridge signal quality performance, almost all the people here know about because there are several posts/reviews by me and other persons that states that important issue.

Plastic plug/body holding stylus:

this makes a whole quality performance differences. If it is true that one " advantage " on the MM/MI cartridges is that it is easy to change the stylus ( than LOMC ones where we have to send it to the manufacturer. ) and have some " fun " changing or " up-dating " with different stylus replacement on the line it is true IMHO that this characteristic is a " weak " factor on this type of cartridges.

I was aware on this issue several years ago and what I did about was to glued firm to the cartridge ( now not taking that " advantage " any more. ) on those cases were the stylus seems to me more loose than others.

I posted here something about and if I remember Daniel posted too. Even I reported that on my Nagatron 350-360 that was " refreshed " last year by VdH arrived with the stylus body/plug perfectly glued with out asked for to VdH.

IMHO the resonances/distortions for that sole MM/MI cartridge design characteristic are higher than what many of you could think ( not you Fleib. ).

How IMHO manufacturers dealt with this specific issue?, well we have to remember that in those times existed a fierce competitive cartridge market oriented not only with quality but price.

If you take the 7s against the 20SS or 15SS 0r the Audio Technica AT-ML160-LC/OCC you can see the differences on phisical quality between them and ( between other things ) there are two differences that the 7s has not: one is that the stylus plug is more loose ( has more play. ) that in the top cartridge brothers and the other is that the body plug it self is made it on the top cartridges ( I reported these when I tested the 3-5-7 against ( a few weeks ago ) the 20SS ) with better characteristics for lower resonances ( to lower induced distortions. ): the stylus plastic body on the seven is thinned than the one in the 20SS or the 160.

All these manufacture characteristics means money because you need more time to take care on the cartridge for a firm stylus body cartridge body contact and for the material price it self.
The harder competition on that old market was on the 100.00 to 170.00 price range so the manufacturer have to build cartridges to a very specific price-point.
This does not happen in that way with cartridge models in the 250.00 prices, like the 20SS and other top cartridges on those times, and that's why not only a better build parts/materials but the time on design these top cartridges.

Let me tell you that I always have a hard time dealing with the Audio Technica AT-ML160-LC/OCC when I need to pull out the stylus because came almost as if the fit was " glued ". Yes, some MM/MI cartridge manufacturers of those times were really aware on these critical issues.

That's why appear the AT-24 and the TK10MLs and the Technics P100C and ADC TRXs that preclude the whole degradation subject through a screw to attach the stylus and B&O made it even better: the B&O cartridges are not user removable stylus.

I think that the ones that are " playing " with those cartridges changing different stylus there will comes the time when the " fun " goes out/off and when this happen the best way to go is to glue the stylus ( the one each one choose as " the best ". ) to the cartridge body.

There are a lot of cartridges with this problems, if I remember I reported too on the Empires 4000s.

IMHO each one of you have to take seriously on these regards or like till today follow " enjoying " high 3-5-7s cartridge distortions ( that are not on the recording. Thuchan, now you could understand one of the multiple sources where you are adding distortions with out " necessity "? ) that in the other side many of you " die for ": certainly not me.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
owning both ATN22 and ATN24 styli in original AT packaging I can attest that the diamond shank on AT22 is beefier than ATN24.
Other cartridge manufacturer that knows a lot about is J.Grado and in their plastic body cartridges ( like my The Tribute. ) you just can't pull out the stylus assembly you need a special tool to do it. I think that in the wood models is no user any more removable.

IMHO we need to " attack " distortions where are happening and " destroy " it before goes inside each one ears.

Dear friends, IMHO distortions ( as a whole ) are the main audio enemy the second one IMHO too are each one of us.

regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Or maybe I beeingn a little short and we are the main and first audio enemy ??????

Raul.
Raul,

With regards to your comment of a TOTL cartridge working best with its intended stylus.

With the greatest of respect I disagree.

At the manufacturer recommended loading - this will be partially true - but the loadings are always limited by market forces (47k / 100k are the only options, and in later periods 47k only)

From my own testing, I think that any blend of stylus and cartridge can be optimised using both C and R loading, and that the end results are primarily (90%+) dependent on the stylus.

With sufficiently low C, higher inductance designs can be given the same performance parameters as lower inductance designs....

When we are talking the last 5% of a cartridges performance potential - details of construction of the cartridge body will start to make a difference, as will firmness of stylus mounting... but cartridge loading will easily overwhelm all of these in terms of its impact.

On a related topic...
I was recently looking at early 80's reviews of TOTL cartridges - all were showing square wave plots.
All the MC's showed overshoot and ringing, but the waveform was very square.
The MM's showed well controlled overshoot and relatively minimal ringing - but the waveform was somewhat curved.

A test of a Talisman IIIs cartridge, showed that increasing the capacitance on this MC cartridge, reduced the overshoot and the ringing (on a cartridge with negligible inductance!).

Are there similar phenomena to be found in MM cartridges?

Are there transient response issues that can be adjusted using loading on an MM?

The frequency response adjustments using loading are very clear - not so for transients!

bye for now

David
Dear Dlaloum: I have no doubt that that is what your " model " tell you but: that model take in count all and each single factor with influence on the cartrridge final quality performance? how are you sure?

on 06-13-11 a very well regarded cartridge designer posted this:

+++++ " In general, I find that a stylus with a longer and narrower groove contact patch is likely to provide greater detail resolution, improved tracking and quieter pops and ticks, but does not have nearly as much effect on the overall sonic personality of a cartridge as the cantilever (or damper/suspension system). " +++++

a cartridge quality performance is a result of what the designer decided to achieve against his success to achieved and that success depends not only in that the design was a good design or in that the cartridge build parts were the right ones or in the good excecution level of that design but in the cartridge voicing too and cartridge fine tunning to achieve his targets. The stylus IMHO is only one of many factors and IMHO not themain one to a cartridge has a successful performance according design targets.

Not knowing your model I can't understand for sure your conlcusions about the stylus ( I'm not trying to diminish in anyway the cartridge stylus importance. ) against several other factors with influence in the final cartridge quality performance.

Btw, if you read through several of my cartridge test-posts you can find that in many of them the " best " result I achieve was adding capacitance not lowering it.

Anyway and as Fleib posted we can disagree on the subject and maybe is better this way because this open a wide window to learn deep on the whole subject. Yes, for the moment I disagree on that 90+ stylus importance rates.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Regards, Dlaloum: Mechanical aspects of mass/spring/damping relate to cantilever/suspension design and have unavoidable effect on rise and settling time. When you stated: 90% "stylus" dependent, are you saying these considerations (stylus + cantilever + suspension) are inclusive? If so, and IF electrical and mechanical systems are analogous then critically damped response in either field can be achieved by loading. Just trying to think from your perspective.

Peace,
Regards, Raul: I read the post from which you quoted and appreciated the insight. I know I'm "preaching to the choir" but other considerations not to be taken for granted are the sonic qualities of the materials used in both generator and stylus assemblies. The differences heard in cantilever material (beryllium/alu.) or LC-OFC compared to PCOCC windings is discernable, nor is how the cartridge body handles resonance to be disregarded. Peter Pritchard said he could hear tie wire resonance and consequently avoided their use. Capable cartridge designers have my respect.

How are things going with your tonearm?

Peace,
Dear Dlaloum, dear Timeltel, the ability to reproduce a clean square wave response - i.e. fast rise and settling time - is direct related to moving mass INSIDE the cartridge. By their very design, MMs and MIs do struggle with a much higher moment of inertia compared to most MCs. Or in other words: the low moving mass is one key advantage of a LOMC (I would say it is THE key advantage - construction-wise).
I for one would really love to see a really low output moving magnet - a LOMM - cartridge one day with say 0.2 to 0.4 mV output and very small (read: lightweight ..) magnets and resulting vast decreased moving mass.
Done right, it will give even the very best LOMCs a tough path to follow.
Cheers,
D.
Hi Guys,

yes when talking about the "stylus" I am talking about the entire removeable unit on a typical MM / MI setup

That is to say the needle itself, the cantilever, the suspension and the damping...

Although the needle affects the levels of distortion and detail extracted from the groove, it doesn't so much affect the sound... The cantilever/suspension/damping is the key to that!

I consider them as a single unit, because I am not willing to take the risks involved in attempting actual direct cantilever and suspension modifications - or the transfer of cantilever/suspension to alternate styli.... this is beyond me (at least for now) - so I treat the units as an integral whole.

When considering the "building blocks" of a turntable setup, I therefore consider the Stylus unit to be the single most critical aspect.

The needle will define the detail and distortion limitations, cantilever and suspension will define mechanical resonance - and damping will in turn modify the resonance - the resonance, and its damping will in turn influence phase and transient behaviour.

Most MM /MI bodies of standard output (ie not the very low output Pickering XLZ/Stanton 980LZ - but most others) - can be configured to very similar electrical performance.... - so the transfer of an ATN440MLa stylus to a TK6Ep cartridge carries the "character" of the AT440MLa with it.

Hi Timeltel - I actually agree that once the overall sound has been handled with loading, then detail aspects like the wire types, cartridge construction, damping internally within the cartridge, firm stylus mounting (blue-tack, glue) - etc... start to get their chance to make a difference.
The more you get sorted, the more it exposes the remaining flaws.... which is one of the aspects that give this hobby its charm.

On your other comment about critically damped response - I understand how to achieve this with the electrical system.
However within a cartridges mechanical system this is only possible by modifying the damping and suspension of the cantilever - mechanical mods I am just not willing to do. (call me chicken...)

Also it is easy enough to "flatten" the frequency response using either analoge EQ circuits or Digital Linear EQ.
BUT - this will not repair the phase anomalies generated by the resonance and its damping.
And there is not way of correcting them without being able to measure them - which is not readily viable.

So we need to strive to select styli and configurations that minimise the phase anomalies - because once they have happened, there is not much we can do about them. (unlike F/R amplitude anomalies that we can correct far more easily)

I have been on the hunt for low inductance design cartridges for this very reason.... (which I will explain)
A low inductance cartridge makes it almost impossible on a standard configuration (47k, 100-400pf) to generate an electrical resonance - so electrical resonance tends not to be used as a corrective mechanism for the amplitude F/R.

Without this corrective mechanism - and with the typical very linear extended F/R provided by a low inductance setup - there is nowhere to hide a mechanical resonance - so the Stylus designs tend towards designs that push the mechanical resonance beyond the audible zone. This ensures that the phase anomalies are also pushed beyond the resonant zone.

So there is therefore the potential for providing performance which is linear in both amplitude and phase...

Lots of guessing going on here.

So far what I have that I have measured is an ADC SuperXLM - inductance around 280mH - not really low enough - but the concept works - stylus resonance is somewhere between 21k and 23k - so it still impinges on the audible area, but to a more limited degree.

Today I received a Pickering XLZ-7500-S - with what appears to be a good condition stylus (!) - with inductance of 1mH, resitance of 3 ohm and output similar to a LOMC - I expect that it will support my theses .... I will know more in a few days.

Other cartridges of interest would be the Technics EPC100 (33mH - too expensive nowadays...), AT22/23/24/25-TK9/10 family (88mH - on its way to me now!).

My first try at this was the Grado - which at 50mH is right in there - but its electro-magnetic design is such as to make it difficult to seperate electrical from mechanical response, and therefore it does not help in shedding light on things (not to mention being more difficult to optimise).

Raul - In amplitude F/R terms I can see the purpose of capacitance.... in phase terms I consider it risky - if not critically damped that is.
The other thing that I do not yet understand is the transient response and how various things affect it.
I can now relatively easily optimise a cartridge for flattest F/R possible while maintaining critical electrical damping. It appears that capacitance might be a factor however in controlling ringing and overshoot (as mentioned in my previous post) - ie improving transient response - this I need to get a handle on now... A step at a time.

Bye for now

David

p.s. I should probably clean up the model and publish it out to those who are interested... it is after all just an excel spreadsheet!
David,
***With sufficiently low C, higher inductance designs can be given the same performance parameters as lower inductance designs***

IMO you couldn't be further from the truth. You're relying on amplitude response and that's only one aspect. A truly high inductance cart can not offer the fidelity of a low inductance high quality version. A 681 vs a 881 would be a good example, except one is a MM and one is a MI. But take any example of a high inductance model and play around until you have flat response. That sound will lack reality. When you hear it playing from another room, the sound won't almost fool you and sound like it could be live.
Regards,
David,
Interesting - using shunt capacitance reduced overshoot on the Talisman. The curved or angular square wave is phase angle anomaly on the MM. Perhaps reducing capacitance will improve it. It would be interesting to see if there is an effect on transient response as well.
Regards,
Dert,
I would imagine that the LOMIs out there would also give those same LOMCs a run for their money...
Dear Dlaloum: Now I agree. I posted that stylus/cantilever/suspension is a sub-set of the cartridge-set and is useless and very dificult try to separate each part to make evaluations.

Yes, we are in the same boat about but I still think in the way I posted about what a cartridge designer try to achieve on his designs.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Timeltel: Thanks to ask. It is incredible but we are almost on " stop " because the wire-cable supplier that we choose can't ship our order from more than a month and this " last " test is very important not only on the item perfrormance but we need a trusty supplier.

yes, we are on delay.

On other issues, with MM/MI designs not only body resonances are critical ( same with MC ones. ) but on the stylus body assemble on the stylus guard, etc, etc,. We need to " fight " against resonances/distortions that were not on the audio item designs.

I posted that distortions are the main audio quality performance enemy and that's why ( especially with analog. ) all of us are looking how to damp in better way the TTs using different kind of mats/clamps/TT platforms and the like, we are looking how to dapm/take away vibrations/impede vibrations outside-inside on electronics, CDP, speakers, room, tonearms, arm board, headshells, cables, etc, etc.

There is no single audio link in a system audio chain where that enemy " lives " and we have to " destroy " it or at least lower distortions on each and all links in that audio chain. Of course that are different importance level on those distortions depending its kind of distortions, its intensity and where develped those distortions.

Now, IMHO to know that we need to lower " distortions " ( everywhere. )could be useless if we don't have a " method/process/tests " ( with both: objective and subjective " weight ". ) to be aware of those distortions to identify it and after be aware of distortions know how we can lower or work to disappear it and sometimes accept that we have to change and choose a different new audio item/link.
This is why I posted that maybe we are the first enemy to audio when we are unaware of those distortions or we don't take care about because our targets are different or just we love those distortions.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
Dear Dertonearm, To elaborate on what I think T_bone was getting at, of the 3 basic types of cartridge, MM, MI, and MC, the MI type will tend to have the lowest moving mass, not the MC type. This is a matter of fact as told to me by Peter Lederman, to explain why he still pursues the design and production of top quality MI cartridges. I subsequently have read statements that are in agreement with this concept, from other independent sources. (You could argue that PL has a vested interest in making me believe that MI cartridges are superior in one way or another, but I don't think he was "blowing smoke", as we like to say.) Furthermore, it makes sense if you think about how each type of transducer has to operate.
Dear Lewm, sorry, but I can't buy that from PL. Core-less LOMCs do have much less moving mass than even the lowest output MI ...
In any case my main intention was to express my interest in a true high-class LOMM design. Dearly hope that one day we see such a thing.
Might be well worth musing about ...... hmmmmm
Cheers,
D.
Dlaloum, I went to Ortofon web site to look up eff tip mass. It seems they no longer publish that. However, I stumbled on this, that you might find of interest.
www.ortofon.com/technology/the-measurement-test-chain

Regards,
Dertonarm, It's tough making generalizations like that about moving mass. Core-less has nothing to do with it. Some MCs have only 11 or 12 turns of fine wire, but that depends on the output. Every moving part including the tip and the cantilever contribute to moving mass. Your point is absurd. Lederman knows what he is talking about.

You can't be serious about someone producing a new LOMM. We're lucky we have what we have. I take that as a dig at the Stanton/Pickering LO. Be that as it may, I bet if one is sent to Soundsmith or VDH, it will come back truly amazing.
Regards,
Dear Fleib: You are absolutely right. There is a cartridge " characteristic " name it: effective moving mass: stylus, cantilever and as you said every moving part. Here Ortofon talk about effective mass on stylus/cantilever:

http://www.sydneyhificastlehill.com.au/prod941.htm

but are a lot of examples in the net as white papers too.

Maybe JC could brings here some additional " light " on the subject. I think, with out diminish yours, we need expert opinion and JC is a successful cartridge designer.

Regrads and enjoy the music,
raul.
I don't pretend to have a lot of technical expertise about how cartridges work, except on a basic level. But here is a quote from M Fremer, from his review of a SoundSmith cartridge:

"Moving-iron designs such as the SMMC1, or the Grados, use stationary coils and magnets and a small piece of "moving iron." In the original B&O design, what moves is a cross-shaped piece of ultra-low-mass, high-purity iron attached to a soft elastomer damper stabilized in a plastic frame. The iron also incorporates a minuscule tube into which the cantilever is inserted. Each arm of the iron cross is associated with a fixed-coil/magnet structure and as the cantilever moves, it varies the distances between the four arms of the iron cross and the four fixed-coil/magnets, thus inducing tiny voltages within the coils. The advantages of this arrangement include ultra-low moving mass, even compared to an MC design; relatively high output (because the stationary magnet/coil structure can be made large); high suspension compliance; and low vertical tracking force (VTF)."

Note the comment about moving mass relative to an MC cartridge. I am sure DT made an innocent error (I do it all the time), and indeed for all I know it is possible that for some MCs and some MIs, he is correct; a given MC cartridge could have a lower moving mass than a given MI cartridge. But it does stand to reason that because the cantilever of an MI cartridge need not be burdened with either a coil of wire or a magnet, the moving mass would on average be lower than for either of the two other types..
Dear Fleib,
hopefully we will see a further development in cartridge designs. maybe I am wrong when I interpreted your statement that you are satisfied with the current development stage.

best & fun only - Thuchan
Dertonarm made a causal statement :'the ability to reproduce a clean squere wave responce..',etc. A singular causal statement imply a (general) causal law. Something like 'whenever the mass is x , then..'.
I myself was also suprised to learn that the MC cantilever/stylus/ bobin/ coils have less mass then the MM kind. But to negate his statement one should negate the
'whole' causal relationship reg. the 'clean squere wave' and not only one part of the statement. Ie there are MM carts with a 'clean square wave responce' or the presupposed relationship is not true. Or so I thought.

Regards,
Fleib, generalization is what it is - generalization. That includes exceptions from a general line .. ;-) .. no doubt, there are (have been ...) a few MI and MM cartridges with very low moving mass.
None of them however (did) set the all-time mark here.
Some MCs have ( had ...) only 5 or 6 turns of wire and the number of turns does not depend on the output, but rather determines it/contributes to it.
Cantilever (length, material/specific mass etc), tip, glue - all this is apparent in all cartridge designs - independent of principle.
Modern phono cartridges do (did) sport moving mass between 0.2 mg and 1.8 mg. The LOMCs (0.1 to 0.25 mV) however forming the major portion of the "low mass-camp".
Each will promote his favorite - who pays the piper, calls the tune.
The german proverb however - "wes' Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing'" captures the point even better.

But this is not the point here at all.
Why not asking for a modern LOMM ?
We're lucky what we have?
Really?
A supermodest point of view.
I for one can't share that humbleness and would really love to see a MM exploring the thresholds of the principle.
So far I think that hasn't been done yet.
There may (still is ...) be ample room for improvement.
There have been some such attempts in the past, but none really going for maximum reduced mass and lowering output to the level of say 0.2mV.
Of course the healthy output is one of the - if not THE - strongest points of MM/MI cartridges as it eases the demands for the phono stages gain stage.
Nevertheless - maybe one day some dedicated engineer might grace the world with a true SOTA MM-design bringing the moving magnet cartridge to new heights.
As for the Lyra cartridge designs (most of which I like): as far as I know, the inherent cartridge design (generating system) is engineered by Yoshinori Mishima - not JC.
The Stanton/Pickering LOs have so much more problems in their design, that neither Soundsmith nor A.J.van den Hul could alter nor address all that with a new cantilever and stylus.

However - I have used and loved certain MM cartridges in the past. All of them had certain merits which still positively re-sound in my memory.
I vividly remember Joe Grado setting the pace (sonic-wise AND regarding price tag....) with his flux-bridging MI-variants in the late 1970ies and very early 1980ies.
While MCs have seen a great deal of attention by many great engineers/designers since the late 1970ies, I wished one of them would sit down now, with a good cup of tea/coffee - take a long deep moment of reflection and start to re-think and re-design the MM-cartridge.
I can't see anything bad in that - nor any lack of seriousness.
A truly great, modern, MM cartridge would be a huge success on today's market.
Cheers,
D.
Honestly I see no reason why a MM cannot achieve ultra low mass - the Technics EPC100 series achieved effective stylus mass of 0.055g - which I think is the lowest I have seen...

Inductance was 33mH.

I am not yet convinced about the need for hyper low inductance (a la LOMC) - but am in the process of setting up a Pickering XLZ7500S - maybe it will convince me otherwise.

I figure you need sufficiently low inductance to linearise and facilitate the 20-20k range with no phase or amplitude anomalies.

Then comes the other side of the balance - higher voltage = reduced noise and problems in the amplification parts of the setup. - So rather than drop below a certain point, you might aim for a slightly higher inductance in exchange for higher voltage. (ie more turns in the coil...)

The Technics EPC100 is a perfect example of MM taken to the max.

The B&O and Soundsmith series similarly take MI to the max

Do we really need Low Output ? What is really gained by it?

In MC's I understand it, you can lighten the cantilever by reducing the weight of the coil... makes perfect sense.

But on a MM or MI - what do you really gain by reducing the coil?

bye for now

David
Fleib - I hear what you are saying... and I will try it out experimentally.

I have a LOMM (XLZ) and currently a matching HOMM (XSV) - and can customise their loading to match!

Same design house, using same cartridge, in same turntable, with same stylus, comparing high output vs low output...

At this stage I am not convinced - but this may change.

One of my reasons for getting the XLZ was the hope of finding a stylus with mechanical resonance well outside the audio range... which I can then also use in a HO body as well.

I believe the phase anomalies common to most MM setups - caused by resonances within the audible range - are to blame for the rounded square waves - they may also have something to do with that "live" sound. - After all real music includes very complex waveforms not just sine waves - and the flaw in the reproduction of square waves indicates something....

I note that on the Ortofon link, 2 measurements are ignored... transient response and phase response.
Probably not relevant to the production process?

bye for now

David
There was also a remark about the Stanton Pickering LOMM carts...

I would be interested in peoples comments as I am about to start testing one - would be good to compare notes...

bye for now

David
Dertonearm, Nice to know you might have been an admirer of my Grado TLZ. It was my one and only cartridge during the mid to late 80s. Over the years, I kept it in storage while I was preoccupied with a variety of high output MCs and finally low output ones. This thread stimulated me to resurrect the Grado from my bedroom closet. I experimented with it before going on to try others that Raul and others here were raving about. It seemed to have stiffened up during 20 years "in the closet". I probably should run it for several more hours on a test LP before making final judgement. However, the same Grado company still makes expensive MM or MI cartridges (I think the latter), albeit under the leadership of Joe's son. There has not been much comment here about those, probably due to the obsession with vintage types. But I am curious, since in its day the TLZ was superb, really better than any HOMC I wasted time with during the 90s and early 2000s.

Dear Nandric, To be precise, DT and we were discussing the moving mass of MI vs MC. I don't think there's any question that a typical MM would have a higher moving mass than either of the other types. Or perhaps you knew that and I misunderstood your post.
Dear Lew, It was Dlaloum proposition that 'all MC's ,etc.,but
the waveform was very squere. The MM ... but the waveform
was somewhat curved', which Dertonarm addressed and try to
answer with his hypothesis about the the mass of the cantilever ,etc. Both statements assume some causal relationship between the mass and the waveform. To refute one of both statements one should either state that there are MM carts with 'very squere wave form' or that the stated (co)relation does not apply. We got no answer about this
question but well all kind of assumptions about the mass
of MM cantilevers versus MC cantilevers mass.
What about the waveform of both? This was the question which needed explanation. I have seen no answer to this question because all answers were focused on the mass part
of the question.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I think Dertonearm posited that the difference in observed capacity to pass a square wave was due to differences in moving mass, and in so positing, DT stated that MC cartridges have lowest moving mass. I only responded to that part; on average, MC cartridges do not have lower moving mass than MI cartridges. That's all I meant to say about that. So if MC cartridges were observed to pass square waves better than MI ones, it is not likely to be due to the MC type having a lower moving mass.

I always thought that capacity to pass a square wave was related most to bandwidth. In cartridges, bandwidth must be delimited by cantilever resonance, inductance, capacitance, etc, as well as by moving mass.