MC versus MM. Which to choose.

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

To my mind J. Carr is one of the most valuable member of our forum. In all of his contributions he demonstraded his scientific attitude, integrity , eloquence and kindness.
It is very unfortunate that some members are questioning
his integrity. It may be the conincidence regarding the MM-versus MC carts and the Atlas story but 'biased' is mentioned explicite.
I am the last to defend the MC prices but one should think
about import duty, importers and dealers fees. My estimate
is that the producer get 30% of the actual sell price. Besides for the question which kind, MM or MC, is really better sounding the price is not a relevant criterion. Ie it
is not about the value in terms of money . This question is already answered btw. While we all assume that anybody is free to spend his money as one pleases we are continualy
asking why should someone spend 8K for a cart. Then there is a very strong competition among MC producers so the market is supposed to solve this issue.

Regards,

Dear J.Carr: I own the L1000 and yes it is very good performer as the 100CMK4.

Now, on phono cartridges as in other audio products theory not always is confirmed through playback, many of us experienced this fact.

Of course that I can hear differences very tiny differences. Things could be that those differences that you and me are hearing could be " different " because different audio systems and maybe different main self targets.
What for you is right for me ( against my goals ) could be not so right.

Argue about could be endless till you can hear my system and I can hear yours: there are the main differences, different system distortions and different system resolution. I hope some time we can do that, IMHO could be a learning time ( and fun too. ) for both of us.

I respect your phono stage but our Essential is IMHO second to none. This is not the subject because I know that your audio systems are first rate.
As you I know what I'm hearing " problem " is that you don't know what I'm hearing and that's why this is an open invitation to meet you here at my place as my guest. You only need time to do it. We will see.

Yes, I posted that as designer/manufacturer is your privilege decide what to build, no problem with this.

About the AHEE pressure I talked that " pressure " exist every single day, customers almost has not a wide and free land to choose: for years suddenly audio magazynes speaks on the MC superiority and not only that but stop to review on MM/MI cartridges; audio distributors only marketed MC cartridges not MM/MI as alternative and even if they handle one or two MM/MI models they almost always took as a very inferiuor source; manufacturers ( like you ) for whatever reasons just don't care and diminish MM/MI cartridges as an alternative in his cartridge line, internet forums for years speaks about MC not MM/MI with out reasons.
I remember that when Lewm ask something to the designer/manufacturer about MM set up of the phono stage he was using with MM cartridges ( I think Ayre, can't remember ) this person told him something like this: " don't waist your time and go with MCs ", and this happen a few months ago.
As like this there are several examples of what is happening around.

J.Carr we can't close/disappear the sun with a finger: ask any of the top guys in Agon ( megabucks systems. ) about MM/MI or if 5-10 years ago they owned MM/MI cartridges when even today is almost an " insult " to think they can own and hear to MM/MI alternative: no way, it is a " shame " against its friends to have a humble MM/MI with them: you know, it is not expensive enough to own it and in the other side: distributor, reviewers, designers are not against but does not cares about and still think ( as you posted. ) MM/MI as an inferior source.

I respect persons that as M.Lavigne took the time to heard the MM alternative perhaps for the first time in last 20 years with out taking in count what his audio friends could think about.

For me this kind of audio environment where we have no alternatives is a " pressure " and there are other factors that the AHEE use to make that pressure.

I'm intenting to have a cartridge that can outperform every other cartridge we have today but I'm a rockie on cartridge design so I don't know if I can fulfil that target but at least I'm on this proccess.

I don't die for the MM/MI in the same manner that I did/do not with the MC, as I posted several times both are only alternatives and each one with its own trade-offs.

Anyway, I think you made your point of view and I made mine.

Could this change?, could be but the " future " is the " ball's owner " and has the last word in the subject.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Raul, We have also this thread about 'Stand out phono
stages' in which the Lyra Connoisseur is mentioned as the
best phono-pre among all others. Whatever one may think about HIFI Magazines it seems that the common opinion about this phono-pre is universal. While your phono-pre is
according to you 'second to none' I have seen no reference
to your phono-pre anywhere at all. Tolking about 'biased'
opinions. While you have no any understanding of carts construction and production you have no problem at all to dismiss the opinion of one of the most talented designer we know at present. One which already designed and produced some of the best carts in the world. I mentioned earlier your arogance but this one is above any comprehension. There is something wrong with you in my opinion.

Regards,