MC versus MM. Which to choose.

Speaking as someone who has designed cartridges, phono stages and tonearms, my experience is that the choice for best sound between MM and MC depends largely on the phono stage and the tonearm and to a lesser extent, the turntable.

The tracking ability of a cartridge depends greatly on the tonearm that it is installed in, and the sonic performance of a cartridge can be made or broken by the phono stage. Regarding both tonearms and phono stages, I have found MCs to be considerably more demanding of the equipment that they are paired with. Phrasing that observation slightly differently, you could say that MMs/MIs make it easier and cheaper to design a phono stage or a tonearm that sounds relatively good.

Although I have heard many MM/MIs and rather like some of them, I have heard no current or out-of-production product that has made me think that I must add a similar MM or MI to our cartridge lineup.

OTOH, I do believe that MM/MIs have the possibility of conferring certain key advantages over MCs for a cartridge designer who has very specific design goals in mind.

hth, jonathan carr

MC, the designer and salesman dream. Bigger profits from the cartridge itself, better (more expensive) tonearm needed, better or more expensive phono stage needed and or an extra gain stage usually needed which would also be expensive. I need all this to hear a slight improvement over a high-end TOTL MM model? And after all this extra expense, just how much better would it be I wonder? Or would most of my decent sounding records still just sound decent and only the best recordings sound a little better?

Plus what exactly is invovled in designing and building a TOTL MC cartridge that drives the prices up to 4K and even much more being the parts are essentialy inexpensive things. There are MM cartridges with just as good quality cantilever and diamonds as the super expensive MC models, but for a fraction of the cost.

It all makes sense to me that a high quality MM cartridge is a good solution for those of us who are on a budget or budget minded. Example of why someone might be budget minded, "the wife would freak out if I spent 4K on a cartridge" and then probably kill me if told her "well now I need a better phono stage and tonearm to hear how good this cartridge sounds" etc. :)

I guess I should have mentioned that I know of the MC cartridges that are more affordable and would offer very good value from what I understand. Some of the Audio Technica models like the AT33 and some from Denon. If I decide at some point to try a MC design again it would be a model from either of these two companies. I just think some of the MC cartridges are just overpriced. Just my opinion, though.

Dear J.Carr: +++++ " The tracking ability of a cartridge depends greatly on the tonearm that it is installed in----- " +++++

I respect your opinion but I disagree with that statement.

Through hundred of experiences in my own system testing same cartridge with different way different tonearms ( decent tonearms. ) the cartridge shows its tracking abilities does not " matters " in which tonearm. I'm not saying that's not important the tonearm in this regards but what I'm saying is that the tracking abilities is something mainly on onw and inherent to each cartridge. Can be one or two exceptions to my experiences but these exceptions only confirm the " rule ".
My experiences were with MM/MI and LOMC cartridges where the LOMC cartridges shows were more dependable on the tonearm but even that its tracking abilities mainly belongs to it.

I can give you some examples: AT20SS running/playback the Telarc 1812, it does not mattters which tonearm you are using always track clenaly the tortuose grooves on the recording, Denon DL-1000/Ortofon MC2000/DL-S1/etc tracks in that way too.

In the other side, Clearaudio Virtuoso can't do it or the Acutex M320 ( flat nose ). Not only fail on tracking but always did it on the same grooves it does not matters which tonearm in use: same for KRSP or XV-1 or Goldfinger or Lyra Skala.

Why this happen, I don't know I'm not an expert cartridge designer, I report only it happened.
Certainly there are reasons that can give answers to the whys but at this time I have no answers but only speculations and I don't like speculate on any audio subject.
We need scientific tests/research to be sure about.

+++++ " I have heard no current or out-of-production product that has made me think that I must add a similar MM or MI to our cartridge lineup. " +++++

well in the same way that are manufacturers/designers that are biased through tube electronics and others to SS ones you are an advocate ( for whatever reasons. ) to MCs and that's a good option and your privilege as designer.

I like both alternatives and in both sides are very good performers. IMHO and as with cartridge cantileverless design in the MM/MI alternative exist a very wide " land " to explore ondesign to improve the today status. IMHO too I think that the research ( serious and deep research ) on MM/MI alternative stoped several years ago when MM/MI alternative did not " business$$$ " any more.

For me had no sense to change under hard pressure by the AHEE from MM/MI alternative to LOMC one. This happen several years ago with no clear reasons other than $$$$$.

J.Carr: why in the hell the AHEE took the customers and left in the LOMC road? when this alternative was and is not user friendly as the MM/MI one?: a LOMC cartridge needs additional gain, additional care on noise and audio pollution around, extra stages, " special " tonearms, etc, etc: all these in change for what? when a normal MM/MI with an user friendly approach by inherent design gives to the customers 99.99% of what any LOMC can offer.

Makes sense to you?, not for me but that's me.

J.Carr, take a Technics EPC100CMK4 that in stock shape is fully IMHO competitive with any today top LOMC cartridges ( including Lyra models. ), then rebuild it to today standards on build materials as coils, cantilevers, suspension or/and stylus shape to improve it and I can tell you that that " new " Technics will now not only competitive as already is but will outperform the best LOMC today samples.
As I said: MM/MI is a land almost virgen and I hope that the best on it is to come.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Raul: As I have stated repeatedly, among other MM and MI cartridges, I own multiple units of the EPC100C Mk4. I find it to be quite good, but not nearly as good as you seem to think. When I play a Titan, for example, through my Connoisseur phono stage, the EPC100 does not measure up.

I have also designed MMs (OEM jobs), and apart from the fact that the high output voltage makes the job of the phono stage easier, and is more resistant to the sonic degradation that you get when the tonearm designer has decided that it is OK to put multiple electrical contacts in series with the signal (like you get with universal headshell tonearms), I don't see the advantages.

In the past, myself and other posters have suggested cartridges like the JVC L1000, in which the signal coils are ultra low-mass microcircuits that are bonded directly to the stylus. This is a huge architectural advantage, and there is no engineering aspect about the EPC100 that should make it competitive with the L1000. This is exactly how these two cartridges sound to me, also. The EPC100 is sounds good, but it is not nearly as good as the L1000. I think that other audiophiles who own both of these cartridges, and use the L1000 with a really good phono stage or headamp like the Pioneer H-Z1, will agree with this.

The fact that you don't seem to be able to hear this to me sounds completely illogical. Why on earth should passing the LP signal via a longish cantilever into a large and comparatively sprawling high-inductance magnetic circuit (as on the EPC100) sound better than passing the LP signal directly from the stylus into a compact magnetic circuit with very low inductance (as on the L1000)? Apart from personal preference, and perhaps the vagaries of matching cartridges to preamps, I can't think of any reason.

>For me had no sense to change under hard pressure by the AHEE from MM/MI alternative to LOMC one. This happen several years ago with no clear reasons other than $$$$$.

A manufacturer is free to make whatever he likes. A customer is also free to buy whatever he likes. I would like to hear specifically what kind of "hard pressure" you are talking about, because I've not seen it.

>why in the hell the AHEE took the customers and left in the LOMC road?

Again, you seem to be making accusations that have no factual basis. FWIW, my limit as a cartridge manufacturer is monthly production capacity. Right now it wouldn't be feasible for Lyra to make much more than 80 cartridges per month. Since it is possible to make MMs and MIs at a much faster rate than with MCs, if I knew how to design a superb MM or MI that I felt was fully competitive with the very best MCs, I'd take the opportunity in a flash, because it would be the answer to my production capacity problems. I could earn a lot more if I had such an MM or MI in my product lineup.

The reality is that I don't know how to design such a superb MM or MI, nor have I encountered any MMs or MIs that were good enough to convince me that I should seriously study how they were designed and put together.

As to why more cartridge manufacturers don't have MMs or MIs in their product lineup, it's most likely because not everyone shares your opinion.

As to whether I am biased in favor of MCs over MMs, my position is completely neutral. If I can figure out how to design an MM or MI that convinces my ears that it is is worth adding to my product lineup, I promise that I will do so. If not, I won't.

Business-wise, I wish that I could have a really stellar MM or MI in my product lineup, because it would allow Lyra to expand as a cartridge manufacturer.

kind regards, jonathan carr