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.

Ag insider logo xs@2xrauliruegas

@lewm  I am following the notation on the data sheets, which use wording such as "complement to type XYZ", and of Horowitz and Hill (Art of Electronics Ed 3, 2015, pp106-108). Just wondering if I had misinterpreted..

Agreed about the superb MAT series. I use both PNP and NPN complements in my pre. After AD threatened to drop the PNP's I bought a jarfull and whatever is left over is going in my will !

I found a business in CA that stocks lots of NLA transistors, both NPN and PNP.  I bought both types from them when I was trying to get my Beveridge direct-drive amplifiers up and running, which I finally did do.  Contact "Jameson Electronics".  I forget what city they are in but definitely CA. I can get further info for you if you need it after Googling. MAT02 are NLA also, but I think there are later subs (e.g., MATXX, where X is numerical) that might work; you'd have to read the fine print on the data sheets. I have a small stash of the 02s, but I have never blown one.

Forgot to add, anyone who has had work done successfully on an Astatic or Glanz cartridge, please share. (My reading suggests that Glanz MFG types are similar in design and function to Astatic MF types, and possibly that both of these moving flux cartridge lines came from the same source in Japan.)

Hello Raul, just wanted to say Hi!
I still have the Empire EDR 9 body that you recommended many years ago, that Carver receiver is dead but I am temporarily using a Rega I/O integrated amplifier just for the SS phono section while I save up for a integrated tube amp and the same brands higher end tube phono preamp. I'm glad to see you're still here. I've appreciated talking with you in the past and I remember you fondly.

Dear @lewm  : No, wenever used the MAT 02 even 20 years ago when we started with the Essential 3150 I not even knewnothing about the MAT 02

Our white papers/targets was to design a fully discrete phonolinepreamp ( yes, I know that the MAT02 is a discrete design. ) where we choosed all the cative/passive parts and decided to use bipolars in the input gain with MC cartridges because goes a little better with bipolars than with FETs.

Obviously that it's way more easy to work with FET because bipolars must be in matched pairs what is not so easy to achieve it. Around 6 years latter came the 3160 model using bipolars too at the input gain but with different transistors.The MM stage were where weuse FETs because were more adequated for MM than for MC cartridges.

Transistorand FET devices improved over time and today we have better parts. Now, obviously that MC design works  fine with FETs especially today but even that wefollow taking the time with bipolars and choosing the more neutral devices because even than in theory must be the sameour first hand experiencesis that there are minute differencesin between transistor and Fets.

First timeI been aware of the MAT02/03 was when Ibougth second hand myLevinson Reference 20.6 monobloks and we made it some mods and J.Curl used those MAT in that truly great amplifier design.

 

We, like to choose and listen to all the passive/active parts in the Essential 3180 design.

 

R.