-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
MM vs MI vs MC
- Thread starter watchnerd
- Start date
There are lots of things to measure, and lots of intents and purposes. None of which pertain to the question I asked.
Tom C
Major Contributor
No, all over the board. The best are long in the past.
This list was lifted off a thread on Vinyl Engine. I've added/changed info on it as I come across stuff and if I remember. Some of it is from product info, one is from sources that I think are credible, and for some I've simply no idea where the info came from. I'd also not mistake the trailing 0's for precision - I think someone was just after uniformity as for the original list all figures were three decimals.
**I updated and put an asterisk next to the ones where I've been able to verify in product literature.
Code:
6.000mg ELAC STS-200 (1958, first stereo MM pickup?? 4-6g VTF)
6.000mg GE VR-II (1955, mono, variable reluctance, 4-7g VTF)
4.500mg Sonotone 9T (1960, stereo, ceramic)
3.000mg Philips GP316 (1958, crystal, mono, 5-7g VTF)
1.400mg Philips GP380/GP390 (1968, high fidelity ceramic cartridge)
1.200mg Shure V15 first generation (MM)
1.000mg Ortofon SPU (all classic and 'mono' models)
0.970mg Shure "bi-radial" (0.4x0.7mil, MM)
0.800mg (less than) Philips GP400, 401 1st gen (MM)
0.750mg Ortofon X1-MCP (p-mount, high output MC)
0.700mg Ortofon X5-MC (HOMC, nude FG)
0.600mg Nagaoka JT-555 (pseudo "carbon fiber" cantilever)
0.600mg (less than) Philips GP412 1st gen (MM)
0.5mg *B&O MMC5(R) (MMC, tapered alu, titanium bonded elliptical)
0.5mg B&O MMC 3000 (MMC, conical)
0.5mg Pickering XSV 3000 (1976 original)
0.5mg *Soundsmith Otello (MI, alu, bonded elliptical)
0.500mg Ortofon OM10 stylus (bushed elliptical, MI)
0.500mg Philips GP922 (high end MC)
0.450mg Shure V15-II (MM)
0.4mg B&O MMC 4000 (MMC, nude elliptical)
0.4mg B&O MMC 5000 (MMC, shibata)
0.4mg *B&O MMC4(R) (MMC, tapered alu, titanium bonded elliptical)
0.4mg Pickering XLZ 3500E
0.400mg Ortofon OM20 stylus (nude elliptical, MI)
0.35mg *Soundsmith Carmen MKII (MI, alu, nude elliptical)
0.35mg *B&O MMC3(R) (MMC, tapered alu, nude elliptical)
0.3mg *B&O MMC2(R) (MMC sapphire tube, nude line contact)
0.30mg *Soundsmith Aida (MI, sapphire, selected nude contact line)
0.30mg *Soundsmith The Voice (MI, ruby, nude contact line)
0.30mg *Soundsmith Paua MKII (MI, alu, selected nude contact line)
0.30mg *Soundsmith Sussurro MKII (MI, ruby, nude contact line)
0.30mg *Soundsmith Hyperion (MI, cactus, selected contact line)
0.370mg Shure Elliptical (0.2x0.7mil, MM)
0.330mg Shure bi-radial on V15-III (MM) (berillium control rod)
0.32mg *Soundsmith Zephyr (MI, sapphire, selected nude contact line)
0.3mg Pickering XLZ 4500S
0.300mg Ortofon OM30 stylus (nude Fine Line), OM40 (nude FG), MI
0.290mg *Technics EPC-P202C (p-mount, MM, boron cant)
0.290mg Shure HE on V15-IV (MM) ("telescopic shank")
0.28mg *Soundsmith Sephyr MKII (MI, new alu, nude high profile contact line)
0.27mg *Denon DL-301 (MC, amorphous boron pipe)
0.25mg Yamaha MC-1X/MC1-1S (MC)
0.25mg *B&O MMC1 (MMC, sapphire tube, nude line contact)
0.25mg *Denon DL-207 (MC, amorphous boron pipe)
0.240mg Van den Hul Colibri (MC)
0.23mg Pickering XSV 3000 (improved)
0.23mg *Technics EPC-P310MC (p-mount, MC, boron pipe)
0.23mg *Technics EPC-100CMK2 (MM, boron pipe)
0.22mg B&O MMC 6000 (MMC, beryllium, 7 µm/2 x 50 µm Pramanik)
0.220mg Ortofon Jubilee (MC)
0.2mg Elite Electronic Industries/EEI 747 Prelude, 700 Pacer (MM)
0.2mg Stanton 880S/881S/980LZS/981LZS (MI)
0.2mg Pickering XLZ 7500S (MM)
0.200mg Empire 2000-Z (shielded moving iron, stylus 0.2 mil x 0.7 mil diamond)
0.19mg Shure Ultra 400 (MM)
0.18mg Empire Golden Touch 1000 GT
0.18mg *Denon DL-303 (MC, amorphous boron pipe)
0.170mg Shure Micro-Ridge (V15VMR, V15VxMR) (0.15x3.00mil, MM, beryllium cant)
0.168mg *Denon DL-305 (MC, amorphous boron pipe)
0.167mg *Yamaha MC-5 (MC)
0.165mg Shure Ultra 500 (MM)
0.149mg *Technics EPC-(P)205CMK3 (MM, boron pipe)
0.145mg *Yamaha MC-3 (MC)
0.139mg *Technics EPC-P310MC2 (MC, boron pipe)
0.109mg *Technics EPC-(P)205CMK4 (0.2x0.7mil, MM, boron pipe)
0.105mg Yamaha MC-1000 (MC)
0.098mg *Technics EPC-(P)305MCMK2 (MC, boron pipe, 0.2x07mil)
0.098mg *Technics EPC-100CMK3 (MM, boron pipe)
0.077mg *Denon DL1000A (MC, amorphous boron pipe)
0.059mg Yamaha MC-2000 (MC, beryllium pipe, special elliptical)
0.055mg *Technics EPC-(P)100CMK4 (MM, boron pipe, 0.2x0.7mil)
Last edited:
Tom C
Major Contributor
Tom C
Major Contributor
As my old friend and roommate from China used to like to say, all parties must end.
Yes, though those are from back in the days of ~6G VTF. More telling is that the bulk of someone like Soundsmith's designs sit at 0.3mg - a modern implementation, albeit ruby or sapphire and not something lighter like boron.
The output is analog line level, which can be digitized with an ADC just as well as it can be transferred directly to loudspeakers. My intention was FFT analysis via spectrograms, but also waveforms as this will show differences in performance.
After all, it is this signal that will determine the sound quality of modern cartridges.
Last edited:
The game of murder mystery aside, if you're asking about frequency response, there are good and bad examples of both. In the samples I've measured I find far more flat MM (when load appropriately) than MC. Seemingly for most cartridges from sometime in the 90's onward flat FR was not a performance objective.
Still haven't answered my question.
Newman
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2017
- Messages
- 5,133
- Likes
- 7,276
@Audiofire I think @JP was asking, in my own words, which aspects of the original MC patent, where you mention the patent addresses prior art problems of “stylus inertia, unreliable pressure on groove walls and wear” have not also been solved by modern MM designs?
Especially given that you were quoting the MC’s ability to solve such problems was the reason you like MC? Shouldn’t you like MM just as much, if it solves those problems just as well or even better?
Especially given that you were quoting the MC’s ability to solve such problems was the reason you like MC? Shouldn’t you like MM just as much, if it solves those problems just as well or even better?
I like MM cartridges just as much if the performance is good or better given the differences in price.
So just a tangential factoid that bears no relation to you liking MC cartridges?
anmpr1
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2018
- Messages
- 3,757
- Likes
- 6,680
Thanks for the info...
According to Shure (from one of their long lost FAQs), the Ultra 500 (0.165mg) was the same thing as the V-15V MR (0.170), but in a different body. Same everything else. As I recall, Shure offered it to retailers who could sell it as 'something special', without the steep discount mail order firms were offering on a regular V15. Of course the standard V15 was eschewed by the 'high-end' press, whereas the more expensive Ultra model was generally given good reviews. As expected.
Practically, I have no idea about any differences between 0.165 and 0.170. Whether that is simply unit to unit production variation, or whether the assemblies were actually weighed, with the lighter ones going on Ultra models.
Likewise, the Pickering XSV-3000 (0.23mg) was said to be a Stanton 881S (0.2mg), internally. They even used the same body (although the Pickering was black, whereas the Stanton came in 'silver' aluminum). The 'longhair' brush assembly was different, of course, but that was not attached to the stylus in any way.
I didn't know that there was a later 'improved' version of the XSV-3000.
FWIW, I owned samples of XSV and 881S. I remember them as good sounding MM cartridges. Excellent at their discounted price. Both the V15VMR and V15VxMR were also worthwhile. The 'dynamic damper' was an important invention. Now, with the patent likely expired, it's too bad other makers have not seen fit to emulate it.
I thought the newer VxMR was better sounding than the original, but I'm doing it from memory, so I've nothing to compare, now. It is too bad for analog types that both Stanton and Shure are no longer interested in cartridges. I'm not even sure (nice pun, eh?) that Stanton is in business. Gibson ran it into the ground (like everything else they touched), sold it during their bankruptcy reorg, and now... who knows?
Digital1955
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2022
- Messages
- 74
- Likes
- 64
From the many posts I've seen, it seems many of us value having a flat frequency response from the cartridge + system, irrespective of the type cartridge it is. However it seems like that is easier said that done with what is currently available today. The small collection of MM cartridges I own have way more FR variation (even after playing with loading adjustments) than I could live with. I was happy to settle with my first MC (AT33PTG/II) after finding it much flatter than anything else I own.
With things like the Shure V15 long gone, what cartridge choices do we have available today for the most FR neutral playback (ignoring DSP based correction solutions)?
With things like the Shure V15 long gone, what cartridge choices do we have available today for the most FR neutral playback (ignoring DSP based correction solutions)?
Last edited:
Tom C
Major Contributor
I think the takeaway from all of this is that you can’t just say MM or MC is better. Each cartridge has to be judged on its own merits. If you value flat FR, or low moving mass, or a particular stylus profile, you will find good and bad examples of each in MM, MC and MI designs. About the only constants seem to be how the loading is performed (so your phono stage may factor in here), and that the output of MM tends to be higher than MC. From a noise standpoint, I would expect a potential advantage for MM, just because it may require less gain from the phono stage. But then, with MC, you have the option of SUT. Distortion measurements we’ve seen may give some advantage to one cartridge or another, but don’t seem to vary wildly. Maybe I just haven’t seen enough yet.
Remember though that only the carts listed with an * have been verified against manufacturer literature. It's about once a year I get a wild hair to research the list, and that lasts as long as Vinyl Engine's daily download limit.
Also all over the board in the examples I've measured.
The last new cart I bought was an AT 740ML. At 150pF and 36k the peaking response ~11kHz isn't offensive. Seem rather difficult to find flat cartridges today.
Similar threads
