It costs me $100 a week to listen to vinyl

Lewm,
A 550RS Spyder??!!.......just about the greatest (and rarest car ever together with a Ferrarri 250 GTO). I am jealous!
I've had a '63 Porsche 356B Super (T6) for 20 years having paid $40,000 in 1989 and spending $40,000 over 20 years it is now worth $80,000.
Total cost over 20 years for driving the best car I could ever imagine - zero! I call that economical!

Hi Halco,
that is educational in deed!
you say:
+++ I watched Brian Garrot remove and glue a new stylus...
It is not rocket science like re-tipping moving coils seems to be? +++

Have you ever tried that yourself at all? (I'm not being sarcastic, please)

Something struck me yesterday, listening to "Brothers in Arms".
This will not change things in the cost department, but in the SOUND department.
Here goes:
I understand, that some of the attraction, other then price, is the tendency of a 'fuller' reproduction with MMs i.e. more BASS. Though usually it is coming with a lesser treble performance -- of sorts.
Why it that so?
The higher voltage output directly from that 'massive' coil in the MM body of ~ 5.0mV (mid-point spec. for MM phono stage = 4.7mV input) which makes for a VERY good signal transfer.
Why lesser treble performance?
Because of the higher mass of the magnet / stylus system compared to any LO-MC. That is MM/MC understanding 101, yes?

But what's been going 'down the drain' is some MC 101 understanding. Due to its minimal output voltage EVERY MC originally had to have a step-up transformer to bring it up to ~ 5.0mV (like any MM).
Then came the 'smarties' and said: No need! We'll find the missing 20dB in that solid-state (as tubes only won't hack it) phono-stage for you, save you that SUT cost!
So there we are.
BUT, the funny thing is, that ONE important thing has changed --- that easy, no sweat, BASS performance like an MM can produce (and the MCs superior treble can make that lesser BASS 'feel' even more so -- missing). I'm sure any MM fan will give me some credit as far as the BASS part of it goes, yes?

Now it gets funny (for plenty folks): In comes the SUT and make that MC work as it was originally the case.
What do we get? BASS! What else? Even more dynamic differentiation / depth (diff. between very quite and damn loud), STAGE WIDTH! But there is also a small price to pay --- images are JUST not quite THAT sharp, still good but still.
I still much prefer it to the more anaemic type of hyper-detailed sound, and believe me, I have done lots of cross checking (A/B).

Long story short:
Has any of the MM fans had a chance to hear am MC with a **properly set-up** trannie?
I think THAT, to me, would be the correct comparison --- alas not in price. The trannie / MC set-up should 'beat the socks of ANY MM', it more better has to!
If that was not so, WHY on earth would ANYONE EVER have come up with that MC concept?!
Just to rip us off, I really don't think so.

So yes, NO QUESTION, a top MM is still a worthy cost related alternative, absolutely --- BUT an MC WITH a good trannie is as powerful, AND more detailed, i.e. revealing still more of the inner-detail of the music. Listen to pop / rock (van Halen :-?)-- what inner detail I ask? But then as there is also e.g. Roxy Music...

I like MMs, the bass, the power, but I like an MC WITH a trannie most probably better yet...

Does that make an MM a poor (thinking) man's choice? Could well be just that.

Greetings,
Axel

Dear Axel,
I didn't say that I could re-tip a cartridge like Brian Garrot who did it every day.
Removing someone's tonsils is not a difficult task for a doctor but I surely could not do it?
Your summary of some of the attributes of the MMs opposed to the MCs are interesting as I am doing a direct comparison at the moment between the Garrot P77 and the Dynavector DV1s and ZYX Universe.
Whilst I agree with you that the MM appears to have more bass, this is not quite true in reality. I can best describe it by comparing the bass of the MMs to the bass of a ported speaker. It seems to go deeper but is not as well defined as the bass of the MCs nor does it stop and start as quickly. The bass of the MCs have a tightness and a three dimensionality that the MM can't quite achieve.
On the other hand, the apparent lack of treble you perceive is actually an illusion. All the treble information that I hear with the MCs is there with the Garrot as well. Again, it is the quality of the treble information and its balance that is different. With the MCs, the harmonics of the high frequencies appear to go higher and last longer then the MM which maintains the fundamental rather well.
The primary differences I am finding at the moment is the Midrange strength of the MMs and the overall frequencies balance which seems to me more natural and relaxed than with the MCs.
I will be writing more at length on these differences when I have completed the listening tests.

Raul,

I respect your op on MM carts. I have had a couple that I liked. But could you recommend something specific to try that would perform well on a heavier arm like an SME 3012?

The high cost of replacing a top quality phono cart was one of the main reasons I got involved with Soundsmith's Strain Gauge first as an owner, and now a dealer of that product.

It allows the owner to replace the relatively inexpensive stylus in a few seconds, and have an extra stylus or two on hand in case of an accident, or even to just compare the sound of a brand new stylus with the current one in use, and of course to try different stylus profiles for different LP's.

Before investing in this phono cart "system" I used to run my cartridges too long after they had worn, (for financial reasons) which is obviously not a good idea for our precious vinyl collections.

I have always lusted after owning the best phono carts available, but it was not a financial reality, simply because of the wear factor. I don't mind spending five figures on an amp I may keep 10 years or longer, which will still have some value even at that point in time. But replacing a $3500 cart after 2 years (or less since I listen to vinyl almost exclusively) is a hardship which many of us can't endure.

Now that being said, on the digital front, even though there is no wear factor, I believe the cost factor is similar in the sense that a good digital front end can be expensive, and then a short time later due to advancements, the owner may want to try the next latest and greatest, or some new product comes out at 1/10th the price that is equally as good. That very scenario is playing out right now with a just released digital front I am getting this week - it may very well equal a 10 times more expensive top digital rig.