Small point: I did not mean to declare definitively that LOMCs can fail to produce realistic piano music because of low compliance resulting in mistracking. I certainly do not know that to be the case. I was just offering that as one unsubstantiated possibility. I do also observe that my LOMCs with highish compliance, like the Ortofon MC2000, do a much better job on piano. Thus I infer there might be a relationship. But I campaign against making associations that seem logical but for which there is no direct evidence, and that is one example of such.
MC-MM-MI CARTRIDGES . DO YOU KNOW WHICH HAS BETTER QUALITY PERFORMANCE? REALLY?
Dear friends:The main subject of this thread is start a dialogue to find out the way we almost all think or be sure about the thread question : " true " answer.
Many years ago I started the long Agon MM thread where several audiophiles/Agoners and from other audio net forums participated to confirm or to discover the MM/MI/IM/MF/HOMC world and many of us, me including, was and still are" surprised for what we found out in that " new " cartridge world that as today is dominated by the LOMC cartridges.
Through that long thread I posted several times the superiority of the MM/types of cartridges over the LOMC ones even that I owned top LOMC cartridge samples to compare with and I remember very clearly that I posted that the MM and the like cartridges had lower distortion levels and better frequency range quality performance than the LOMC cartridges.
In those times j.carr ( Lyra designer ) was very active in Agon and in that thread I remember that he was truly emphatic posting that my MM conclusion was not true due that things on distortion cartridge levels in reality is the other way around: LOMC has lower distortion levels.
Well, he is not only a LOMC cartridge designer but an expert audiophile/MUSIC lover with a long long and diverse first hand experiences listening cartridges in top TT, top tonearms and top phono stages and listening not only LOMC cartridges but almost any kind of cartridges in his and other top room/systems.
I never touched again that subject in that thread and years or months latter the MM thread I started again to listening LOMC cartridges where my room/system overall was up-graded/dated to way superior quality performance levels than in the past and I posted somewhere that j.carr was just rigth: LOMC design were and are superior to the other MM type cartridges been vintage or today models.
I'm a MUSIC lover and I'm not " married " with any kind of audio items or audio technologies I'm married just with MUSIC and what can gives me the maximum enjoyment of that ( every kind ) MUSIC, even I'm not married with any of my opinions/ideas/specific way of thinking. Yes, I try hard to stay " always " UNBIASED other than MUSIC.
So, till today I followed listening to almost every kind of cartridges ( including field coil design. ) with almost every kind of tonearms and TTs and in the last 2 years my room/system quality performance levels were and is improved by several " stages " that permits me better MUSIC audio items judgements and different enjoyment levels in my system and other audio systems. Yes, I still usemy test audio items full comparison proccess using almost the same LP tracks every time and as always my true sound reference is Live MUSIC not other sound system reproduction.
I know that the main thread subject is way complicated and complex to achieve an unanimous conclusions due that exist a lot of inherent differences/advantages/unadvantages in cartridges even coming from the same manufacturer.
We all know that when we talk of a cartridge we are in reality talking of its cantilever buil material, stylus shape, tonearm used/TT, compliance, phono stage and the like and my " desire " is that we could concentrate in the cartridges as an " isolated " audio item and that any of our opinions when be posible stay in the premise: " everything the same ".
My take here is to learn from all of you and that all of us try to learn in between each to other and not who is the winner but at the " end " every one of us will be a winner.
So, your posts are all truly appreciated and is a thread where any one can participates even if today is not any more his analog alternative or is a newcomer or heavily experienced gentleman. Be my guest and thank's in advance.
Regards and ENJOY THE MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.
- ...
- 174 posts total
Dear @ak749 : IM means:Induced Magnet as the ADC crtridges and MF is: Moving Flux as the Astatic/Micro Seiki/Glanz and MP: Moving Permalloy like the Nagaoka ones. The Electrostatic I mentioned is the MicroAcoustic cartridges and all these cartridge motor designs work through MM phono stages. You can get samples of all the cartridge motors mendioned in the thread through ebay and other web sites. R. |
Dear @mahler123 : I'm curious how do you arrived to that conclusion that's similar to mine? because I read that you own only MM cartridge/phono stage. I don't think that what you posted was just at " random " but could be. Can you explain a little about? thank's in advance.
R. |
Dear @tomic601 : It’s weird that you mentioned the Audioquest HO AQ 404 because as you can read in my Agon virtual system that’s one of the HOMC cartridges that I own and for a good reason. Good. Btw, Audioquest had the same model but LOMC design too.
R. |
Some recent examples from my channel. Both made with the much-maligned Strain Gauge. With 78s, it’s really mostly about the engineer. The climax in the last minute of that Armstrong record sounded brutally harsh with the Shure and perfect with the SG. All the past engineers have rolled it off hard to avoid distortion. Most engineers favor truncated elliptical stylii, and that's what I use, too. Sadly there aren’t many good 78 engineers, so a few of us audiophile collectors have taken it upon oursleves to do it. The work never ends!
|
- 174 posts total