Added value of MC cartridges over MM? Do we really need MC?

[Endibol]

I wonder what benefits MC cartridges bring over MM-types:
-Amplification is more difficult due to the approx. 10x lower voltage output signal.
-The signal is more prone to all kind of unwanted interferences and noise.
-MC cartridges are typically much more expensive than MM-cartridges.

These "negatives" could all be justified if they really sound better. Is this true?
Have serious (double blind) tests been conducted to compare set ups with MC and MM cartridges?
Curious to read your answers..

 

[Timmeon]

Check out this thread: Toole blind cartridge comparison

And then this one: Introducing the phono cartridge measurement library

 

[DVDdoug]

Do we really need MC?

We don't need vinyl!

-Amplification is more difficult due to the approx. 10x lower voltage output the signal.
- The signal is more prone to all kind of unwanted interferences and noise.

The lower impedance means less (electrical) noise so it's a bit of a trade-off. The lower impedance also makes it more immune to load capacitance (the cables and preamp input).

The biggest source of noise is the surface noise from the record, and overall the record is the weakest link. In the vinyl days record quality varied a LOT. I assume they are better and more consistent now, but I don't play records anymore (occasionally, I'll digitize one that's not available digitally.)

 

[MRC01]

MC are less sensitive to loading, can have lower effective mass/inertia that puts their resonance beyond the audible spectrum, for flatter smoother frequency response and lower distortion. However, in practice many MCs have a rising response to high frequencies which gives a perceptual sense of greater detail, which in my opinion is artificial and unnecessary (and annoying). Back in the day I listened to a bunch of different cartridges. My favorite was an MC, the Ortofon MC-30 Super Mk-II, but I also heard plenty of good MMs and bad MCs.

MMs are definitely more practical: easier to find a good head amp, lower cost of ownership since you can easily swap the needle.

 

[JP]

have lower effective mass/inertia

Not necessarily.

 

[MRC01]

Not necessarily.

Agreed. That's why the full text of what I said was, "can have lower effective mass/inertia".

 

[JP]

Agreed. That's why the full text of what I said was, "can have lower effective mass/inertia".

I should’ve included that word, sorry. My point is that it hasn’t been the case since the 70’s. If you look at the lowest ETM cartridges ever made, half are MM, and the lowest is MM. Pretty good spread above that too.

Phono Cartridge Equivalent/Effective Tip Mass Master List

Dropping this here to get it off my desktop. The original list was posted on VE IIRC, though I've added a lot to it. All the original numbers were three decimals though I've never seen a manufacturer spec more than two, so I assume that was the original author's addition, likely for...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[MRC01]

I should’ve included that word, sorry. My point is that it hasn’t been the case since the 70’s. If you look at the lowest ETM cartridges ever made, half are MM, and the lowest is MM. Pretty good spread above that too. ...

So there are some MMs whose resonance is well above 20 kHz? Nice.

 

[Godataloss]

MC are more fun because it adds even greater impracticality to the entire process. Using a tubed phono pre is the icing on the frustration cake. I figure if I'm going to collect them and occasionally play them, I might as well get the whole experience. It's like smoking cigars- it's an inherently disgusting process, but also occasionally enjoyable.

 

[Endibol]

Check out this thread: Toole blind cartridge comparison

And then this one: Introducing the phono cartridge measurement library

Thanks a lot!

 

[Endibol]

We don't need vinyl!


The lower impedance means less (electrical) noise so it's a bit of a trade-off. The lower impedance also makes it more immune to load capacitance (the cables and preamp input).

The biggest source of noise is the surface noise from the record, and overall the record is the weakest link. In the vinyl days record quality varied a LOT. I assume they are better and more consistent now, but I don't play records anymore (occasionally, I'll digitize one that's not available digitally.)

But it's fun for sure!

 

[mike70]

Thanks a lot!

But ... a test between one mm cartridge against other mc in the 70s means that mc is worthless?

I think is a great, great generalization ... really far from something scientific

 

[Endibol]

But ... a test between one mm cartridge against other mc in the 70s means that mc is worthless?

I think is a great, great generalization ... really far from something scientific

No one said that.. this article gives strong indications that in the 70s the differences were marginal.
My expectation is that this is still valid today.

 

[mike70]

No one said that.. this article gives strong indications that in the 70s the differences were marginal.
My expectation is that this is still valid today.

Marginal between that cartridges ... it isn't a proof.

Normally everything in audio is almost marginal, try an abx blind test in other components. But, even the principles are the same with cartridges since 80s, prices and implementation differ. I never finded a microline stylus at cheap prices like today or very light and stronger magnets in mm stylus, etc etc. I use vinyl since 70s.

I had / have mm and mc cartridges ... and some cheap mc I think aren't better than mm ... but "medium price tag" mc have some differences, basically with voices and hf extension / detail. Just remember that with analog you have a mechanical core functionality ... it isn't easy to "translate" experiences as with a CD player. In digital devices the same commercial model will work (almost) the same to anyone. I finded people complaining about vinyl with a dirty stylus, the turntable in glass furniture and without leveling, as an example.