a moving-coil cartridge is an absolute minimum requirement: even the best moving magnet will not be capable of the measuring the extra information in

[SIY]

Which MM were you reffering to in your post?

See JP's post above with a comprehensive list.

 

[thewas]

Those are manufacturer spec. The ones with an asterisk I’ve confirmed from their literature.

What do you mean with "confirmed from their literature"? Reviews with measurements of such?

 

[Jaxjax]

I started with MC & ended with Grado... go figure.

 

[AdamG]

I started with MC & ended with Grado... go figure.

A big thanks for becoming a “Donor” Member. Donors are the Heartbeat of ASR. Thank you for helping keeping the lights on.

 

[kemmler3D]

In short, records that were dead silent on his normal turntable had an unbearable amount of noise.

Hmm... I guess DACs are a solved problem but "getting 100% of dirt and dust off a piece of plastic without damaging the surface in any way" is not.

It's too bad because the idea of a laser turntable is very interesting... but I guess lasers can't so easily differentiate features of the groove and bits of dust.

 

[Elkerton]

I couldn't find it last time I looked, but somewhere on the forum there is a link (or maybe a direct copy) of a blind listening test comparing a few cartridges including at least one MC. The "looser" was one of the MM cartridges but the MC was NOT a clear "winner". The best of both were essentially tied. (It was a very old listening test form the vinyl days.)

There is also Cartridge Measurement Thread. The thread is pretty long and I haven't read it but I assume there are some clues there. I don't care... I haven't "played records" in decades. It's an outdated-inferior format and IMO, it's foolish to try and perfect it.


Most "audiophiles" are nuts! ...Most "don't believe in" measurements or blind listening tests.

This one? https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/toole-blind-cartridge-comparison.41780/

 

[gwing]

I would like to see evidence that this is the case. More expensive in general, that I can agree with. Quality... a different matter, especially given the vague nature of the term "quality" in this context.

Let me just put it like this then; if you were to take a random sample of moving magnet and moving coil cartridges back when they were in general use I think you would agree that the moving coil ones would likely be on average better than the moving magnet. Even if only because the MC sample would all be fairly expensive quality aimed cartridges while the MM sample would be a tiny fraction of equivalent more expensive quality aimed dwarfed by a huge number of cheap crappy mass market ones.

 

[SIY]

I think you would agree that the moving coil ones would likely be on average better than the moving magnet.

Better in what way? If (from back in the day) I grabbed a Stanton 681 or 881, an ADC XLM, a Shure V15, a Grado G1+, all very popular and not terribly expensive, I would have quality equivalent to most MCs. I'll put aside the rarer stuff like Deccas and the Japanese Technics (which, IMO, are still the very best cartridges ever made).

MCs of that era almost universally had the issue of a depressed upper midrange and a sharp HF resonance. That could be EQed, but EQ was trickier then than it is now. This was particularly bad for some of the very high price units like Koetsu and Kiseki.

 

[gwing]

Hmm... I guess DACs are a solved problem but "getting 100% of dirt and dust off a piece of plastic without damaging the surface in any way" is not.

It's too bad because the idea of a laser turntable is very interesting... but I guess lasers can't so easily differentiate features of the groove and bits of dust.

Better in what way? If (from back in the day) I grabbed a Stanton 681 or 881, an ADC XLM, a Shure V15, a Grado G1+, all very popular and not terribly expensive, I would have quality equivalent to most MCs. I'll put aside the rarer stuff like Deccas and the Japanese Technics (which, IMO, are still the very best cartridges ever made).

MCs of that era almost universally had the issue of a depressed upper midrange and a sharp HF resonance. That could be EQed, but EQ was trickier then than it is now. This was particularly bad for some of the very high price units like Koetsu and Kiseki.

You wouldn't get any of those cartridges in usual the radiograms or music centres of the day. That is where the majority of cartridges would be, and almost all of those would be vastly inferior to any of the MCs or any of the higher quality MMs.

 

[Waxx]

You wouldn't get any of those cartridges in usual the radiograms or music centres of the day. That is where the majority of cartridges would be, and almost all of those would be vastly inferior to any of the MCs or any of the higher quality MMs.

The old Grundig radiogram of my grandfather had a Shure M3D cell. So it's not that those brands were not used by the "hifi" of that time. And the Shure M3D was not the cheap cell, it was top of the line when it came out in the mid 1950's.

 

[SIY]

You wouldn't get any of those cartridges in usual the radiograms or music centres of the day.

Not sure what a radiogram is, but just about every hifi shop in my younger days carried these.

 

[JP]

What do you mean with "confirmed from their literature"? Reviews with measurements of such?

Literature from the manufacturer.

 

[goat76]

I don't own or use a turntable, but I had this period a few months ago when I thought I should buy a turntable. When I looked up some videos comparing MM and MC cartridges I stumble across a video by Pearl Acoustics where he had some sound samples between Nd7 (MM) and Aphelion 2 (MC), both using the same Rega Aria phono stage and a Rega 10 turntable.

To me, the extremely expensive Aphelion 2 cartridge sounds way better than the Nd7 cartridge. If this somewhat shows a general sound difference between MC and MM cartridges I think the former is the one to go for. But this also begs the question, does it take a $5000 cartridge to reach the sound quality of digital sound reproduction?

The sound files:
Nd7 Rega Aria (MM) – I’ve Got You Under My Skin: https://shop.pearlacoustics.com/wp-cont ... xu6fgi.wav

Aphelion 2 Rega Aria (MC) – I’ve Got You Under My Skin: https://shop.pearlacoustics.com/wp-cont ... fafe9c.wav

The source:

 

[thewas]

Literature from the manufacturer.

What about the other ones, where do they then come from?

I am also not sure the effective mass is always measured and stated as an equivalent to the rotational inertia around the suspension but am afraid often just the total mass.

 

[JP]

What about the other ones, where do they then come from?

I am also not sure the effective mass is always measured and stated as an equivalent to the rotational inertia around the suspension but am afraid often just the total mass.

It was originally a list on a forum that someone posted long ago. I added a lot to it, and corrected many mistakes.

Not sure that many just used mass, but I think many used the resonant frequency of the cantilever assembly to back in to EM.

 

[thewas]

It was originally a list on a forum that someone posted long ago. I added a lot to it, and corrected many mistakes.

Not sure that many just used mass, but I think many used the resonant frequency of the cantilever assembly to back in to EM.

Thank you, would have been interesting to see some validation by third party or magazine measurements.

 

[JP]

Thank you, would have been interesting to see some validation by third party or magazine measurements.

How? All one can accomplish in a practical manner is backing in to a figure with a formula that is believed to be true.

 

[Mojo Warrior]

Marketing copy
Written in an effort to boost sales of a specific product

IIRC MC cartridges had significantly poorer signal to noise ratio compared to MM. In addition, a step up device was often necessary to boost the signal which adds another variable into the sound path. Eventually, the market had to offer high output MC cartridges to address this short coming. In conclusion, all opinions are subjective without evidence.

 

[thewas]

How? All one can accomplish in a practical manner is backing in to a figure with a formula that is believed to be true.

I mean to directly calculate it by for example measuring the total mass and estimating how its spread around the components, even better of course by dissecting it (would mean a lot of expensive garbage unless it is already damaged). An indirect method to estimate it through the first resonance mode frequency would presuppose that the stiffness of the suspension is know which I guess is rather not.*

*The stiffness and thus also the effective mass could be determined though by measuring the resonance frequency also with an additionally added known mass.

 

[MAB]

How? All one can accomplish in a practical manner is backing in to a figure with a formula that is believed to be true.

I was under the impression the asterisked cartridges were measured and verified.
I don't measure cartridges often, perhaps I am naïve, and recognize the difficulty of verifying both the claimed compliance and the mass.