MC versus MM. Which to choose.

My dear audiophile friend, who is now too ill to have fun with this hobby, and I found out about HP's feet of clay early on, I think around issue #3 of TAS, when he went wild over the then new Harman Kardon solid state preamp (Citation 12, I think). He and I auditioned one and found it to be just plain awful, "shrill" is the best single word description. This was our first bit of evidence that HP favored a very clinical sound with exaggerated hf response. What HP did do that makes him memorable is to invent a language that can be used to describe the differences in sound among audio components. In that way he was/is a genius.

To his credit, he did also recognize the Audio Research products early on. His endorsement of this and other tube gear was a seminal event in shattering the notion that solid state was inherently superior to tubes just because it measures better in the then common analytical tests. (This is not to say that present day SS gear is in any way inherently Inferior to present day tube gear. Don't want to start a war. The SS gear of the early 70s was like early digital gear of the late 80s.... not so good sounding but great in the laboratory.)

Dear Rockitman: I will email you about.

Btw, IMHO and in the other ( many. ) people opinions my MM " information " is not only theories but something that you as any one can confirm.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

i have purchased a few of Raul's highly recommended MM gems (thanks Raul) and found that they were absolutely wonderful for the dollars. vintage $200-$500 MM's that outperformed 10x as costly MC's. and even did things which were competitive with even higher level MC's. and they were typically very listenable and musical.

for a few years i had multiple tt's and arms and a phono stage which accomodated MM's and MC's. i had these various cartridges side by side, and the best MC's were able to consistently resolve detail and texture which sounded indistinct on the MM's. and ultimately this advantage (albiet at a much higher cost) did allow for a higher musical experience. for the best moving coil a lower noise phono stage is required, more accurate set-up is needed.

at this point i still own a few nice MM's but now only have 1 tt and 2 arms, one for a mono MC and one for a stereo MC.

MM's are excellent but for ultimate performance it's MC.

i know likely since i bought my last MM there are still others which have been found to be even better. maybe they can be equal or better than the best MC's; or maybe they are just different. but i've moved on from that question for myself.

I am far from "done" in comparing MM to MC cartridges. I view this as a work in progress. I would also point out that MI cartridges and induced magnet (IM) cartridges have something to offer which may be unique with respect to both conventional MM and MC cartridges. (Sometimes I think it is the IM/MI "alternative" that draws me in the most.) Then, in the end, it's what you personally like plus what your system "does" best. Plus plus, Mike might be playing with MC cartridges that I do not dare dream about in terms of cost. Having said all that, I am at the point where I would never be without at least one of all 3-4 types. Two years ago, I was a total skeptic on anything but MC cartridges.

everyone needs to be at the place where the their approach to enjoying vinyl playback is most enjoyable for them personally. and after my years of 'playing the field' of multiple tt's, arm's, vintage tt's, cartridges, etc......i've found that (at least for now) simplification is where it's best for me.

if i look back at the last 5 to 10 years of vinyl culture, many things have been learned by many people. the collective knowledge and overall vinyl playback performance for the dollar for all of us has taken leaps and bounds. much of it fed by people actively comparing different products with open minds and ears. it's why i added turntables and arms when people thought i should just enjoy my one tt. i was curious.

MM or MC; these type questions only help us all.