Moving Magnet Vs Moving Coil

[Wombat]

A lot of stuff there doesn't make sense. Sad reality is that if you use a step up transformer, you need an RC series network across the secondary for optimum response. And generally you'll have to determine that experimentally with a square wave generator and a scope. Here's an example.

Yeah, finicky load matching.

 

[Wombat]

Yeah, finicky load matching. View attachment 14411

Darn, I gave my CRO and sig-gen to my son.


A hit and miss approach is described here: http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html

 

[SIY]

For transformers, yes. For most MC cartridges run into active preamps, the loading is far less critical- they present a resistive source impedance with minimum inductance.

 

[Wombat]

For transformers, yes. For most MC cartridges run into active preamps, the loading is far less critical- they present a resistive source impedance with minimum inductance.

Agree, again.

The high-enders seem to like MC with step-up TXs. I wonder how many are properly matched.

 

[SIY]

Close to zero, IME.

 

[TBone]

MC vs MM is a redundant question, way too many variations & variables to come to any certain conclusion. While most hi-enders prefer MC over MM, too many think type & price justifies quality. That can often be proved wrong ... recent example: the original Ortofon A90, measured extremely poorly when compared to far more modest priced, and older carts; and to my subjective ears, sounded quite grating. But it sold well, and remains popular with many hi-enders. It has since been improved (A95) (for obvious reasons).

The moving mass of any type cartridge is important ... interesting MC/MM comparison reading...
https://www.sound-smith.com/articles/fixed-coil-vs-moving-coil-why-make-jump-different-technology

Those were great 'tables. The audiophile community mostly ignored the amazing phono gear Technics was making at the time. Gordon Holt was a slight exception.

They are certainly not being ignored anymore, I've seen and heard many around town in very hi-end establishments. The best I've heard was a Technics with a SME IV arm, but unfortunately, no rips were supplied ... so I've only fleeting memories.

Rips always tell the tale ... I've got a bunch of Technics based rips (ripped by others) ... and "great" is not the word which comes to mind. With most rips, the term "great" is but a rarity, even based on my own. That said, I have quite a few "great" rips in my inventory, and thankfully, my recent MM setup has the potential for many more. Prior, I ran different MC's for over 2 decades. Unfortunately, my MC based rips are limited to my prior Benz Ruby H2 (although I've plenty third party rips using expensive coils.), which is too bad since I remember some of those older MC's favorably.

Prior to my MC stage, I had a variety of different MM types, including the Shure IV and the much better Vmr, quite a few Orts AT's, plus others that have long faded from memory. That said, I still remember the first boron cantilever cart I owned, a Nagaoka (MP20 iirc). Been a fan of boron cantilevers since. Likewise, my opinion on stylus cuts has changed over the years also, from the very aggressive FG-S, Micro-Ridge, and less aggressive line-contacts to standard elliptical. From a loading point of view, few issues. The Ruby was used in a variety of ways, but was best served when fed into the standard 47 MM stage, further amplified by a subsequent line stage.

Tonally, the Ruby was quite accurate, as is my current MM based setup.

Subjectively, I prefer my current MM based setup to the Benz, esp. in the lower frequencies, but in reality, it's not an even playing field since my turntable has undergone various modifications, and setup techniques have changed considerably, since the Ruby. And that's the key to evaluating any cartridge, of any variety, because IMO, a cartridge's performance is ultimately slaved to it's mount; the turntable and especially the tonearm/setup. (not to mention critical LP cleaning).

Some time back, John Elison, was kind enough to provide ripped CD's for comparison based on his then Technics/Denon rig. Past a few other rips using 3rd party tonearms, JE's rips remain the best Technics turntable/Technics arm rips I process. They measure very well, in some cases better than my Ruby, with very accurate dynamic values in comparisons to the CD counterpart. Objectively fine, but, subjectively, they didn't float my sonic boat. A very low level, but pervasive grungyness bothered me (although he claimed the LP's were cleaned, I'm not certain on his effectiveness). And like most turntables, ticks & pops can often seem exaggerated. Although DR values were high, a lack of "dynamic slam" seemed to prevail; the music never really came alive.

If anyone can offer "better" or "greater" rips of a Technics (or any turntable for that matter), I'd appreciate hearing them. Perhaps they'll change my mind on Technics in general. Personally, when it comes to talking vinyl quality, without rips to share for comparison, the entire subject becomes moot.

To that end, here is a FLAC file containing a few 1 minute segments / samples taken from my latest rips.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aitu3duahbzl95o/bcr4snips.flac?dl=0

 

[pastorbarrett]

Damn, that Talking Heads sounds good.

 

[TBone]

Damn, that Talking Heads sounds good.

Yes, this orig LP rocks ... the original (uncompressed) CD's (don't have the sku# handy) have very similar or even better dynamic range values and is worth seeking out if analog/LP is not your "thing". That said, avoid any CD re-master dated >2000, all are much more compressed.

 

[The Dragon]

I've read that advances in manufacturing in recent years have narrowed the gap somewhat concerning MC's reputed superiority over MM. For arguments sake, and perhaps putting aside the preamp variable and assuming adequate performance there, is there any reason to plump for, say the very well regarded AT33PTG, versus one of Audio Technica's top MM's? Obviously specs don't lend too much insight, but let's assume similar stylus shape etc

Many thanks in advance

OK, I will make a run at this. In my opinion, there tends to be far too much generalization when this topic comes up in the audio forums. There are several major types of phono cartridge designs. Moving magnet (MM) and moving coil (MC) are only two of them. It has been my experience over the years that there are examples of each design type that can sound amazing if properly matched to turntable/tonearm/head amp electronics AND properly set up and aligned.

If I were to narrow my scope to the current Audio Technica line-up, the VM760SLC (moving magnet) and the AT-OC9/III (moving coil) are pretty comparable in sound quality to my ears. The AT-OC9/III does have a slight advantage in the upper midrange tracking. This is probably due to the boron cantilever (?). I say this because my older AT-155LC cartridge is able to track the upper midrange flawlessly. It has a beryllium cantilever. Then there is my Shure V15 Type IV-MR which sounds amazing. It has a telescoped aluminum alloy cantilever.

I have to agree with your comment that specifications don't lend much insight. One issue with phono cartridge specifications is the accuracy of the numbers published and the lack of any context or limits. I have seen as many as three different ranges of frequency response on some of the older Shure and AT cartridges (for the exact same cartridge). This makes comparison by reading specifications difficult at best. The frequency response and separation numbers tell me a lot about the capabilities of the cartridge on a macro level. The compliance, mass, impedance, output, etc. helps when matching up to a turntable platform. However, nothing is really going to tell you what a particular cartridge/turntable/preamp combo will sound like until you try it. A prime example of this is the Denon DL-110 cartridge (high-output moving coil) I am listening to Madonna "True Blue"on right now as I type this. I have it mounted to a Technics SL-1210M5G with a fluid damper installed. It sounds surprisingly good to me. (YMMV)

Cheers,
Dave

 

[TBone]

I have to agree with your comment that specifications don't lend much insight. One issue with phono cartridge specifications is the accuracy of the numbers published and the lack of any context or limits. I have seen as many as three different ranges of frequency response on some of the older Shure and AT cartridges (for the exact same cartridge). This makes comparison by reading specifications difficult at best. The frequency response and separation numbers tell me a lot about the capabilities of the cartridge on a macro level. The compliance, mass, impedance, output, etc. helps when matching up to a turntable platform. However, nothing is really going to tell you what a particular cartridge/turntable/preamp combo will sound like until you try it. A prime example of this is the Denon DL-110 cartridge (high-output moving coil) I am listening to Madonna "True Blue"on right now as I type this. I have it mounted to a Technics SL-1210M5G with a fluid damper installed. It sounds surprisingly good to me. (YMMV)

Well, when it comes to cartridge specs/measurements, I certainly think they lend plenty insight. Miller Research on-line cart measurements, in my opinion, are very telling. Of course, ultimately, how any cartridge sounds within any particular system remains a variable that is controlled by factors within our command, and/or factors slaved by the equipment. Setup can be very proprietary, different tonearms offer different challenges, alignments differ, amongst other items of importance.

I rip/measure because it helps me no-end when attempting to attain proper setup, especially during the critical break-in period, when things can change over time ...

Without such intervention during setup, I'd be chasing ghosts. Relying on memory for cartridge setup will only get you close (if you're lucky).
As for Madonna's True Blue, past the highly compressed re-master, that specific recording contains impressive dynamic content, so I'm not "surprised" it sounds good, even on vinyl (in jest).

Ripped a few cuts from True Blue not all that long ago, here is a DR14 snippet ...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mrhk5j05pzmg546/LaIslaBonita(snip).flac?dl=0

 

[The Dragon]

Well, when it comes to cartridge specs/measurements, I certainly think they lend plenty insight. Miller Research on-line cart measurements, in my opinion, are very telling. Of course, ultimately, how any cartridge sounds within any particular system remains a variable that is controlled by factors within our command, and/or factors slaved by the equipment. Setup can be very proprietary, different tonearms offer different challenges, alignments differ, amongst other items of importance.

I rip/measure because it helps me no-end when attempting to attain proper setup, especially during the critical break-in period, when things can change over time ...

View attachment 14447

Without such intervention during setup, I'd be chasing ghosts. Relying on memory for cartridge setup will only get you close (if you're lucky).
As for Madonna's True Blue, past the highly compressed re-master, that specific recording contains impressive dynamic content, so I'm not "surprised" it sounds good, even on vinyl (in jest).

Ripped a few cuts from True Blue not all that long ago, here is a DR14 snippet ...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mrhk5j05pzmg546/LaIslaBonita(snip).flac?dl=0

Published specs are one thing. Actual measurements are a different matter entirely. I was referring to the fact that the published specs can be at worst wrong, and at best misleading because of the dependence on setup and platform. All of my upper end cartridges came with actual measurements and yes, they are very telling indeed as long as the context of the system it is measured in is held constant when doing comparisons. Looking at your graph, I'm not sure what it tells you. Just looking at it, my guess is a 1 kHz signal along with some harmonics and a pretty decent noise floor. I would be interested to understand how you are using this to set up your cartridge. (I have never used this method). The only problem with doing measurements like this is that the same cartridge installed in a different turntable will more than likely not measure the same.

Dave

 

[DonH56]

Without getting into the MC vs. MM debate (I have owned examples of each I have loved and hated in the past), one of the oft-overlooked issues with phono preamps in general is Miller input capacitance. Too many preamps spec the static parasitic capacitance and, without Miller compensation, grossly underestimate the actual load capacitance on the cartridge. I remember arguing this with a person from a very high-end manufacturer decades ago...

OTOH it smooths (rolls-off) the high-end and helps suppress ticks and pops so maybe it's a feature (?)

 

[TBone]

Published specs are one thing. Actual measurements are a different matter entirely. I was referring to the fact that the published specs can be at worst wrong, and at best misleading because of the dependence on setup and platform. All of my upper end cartridges came with actual measurements and yes, they are very telling indeed as long as the context of the system it is measured in is held constant when doing comparisons. Looking at your graph, I'm not sure what it tells you. Just looking at it, my guess is a 1 kHz signal along with some harmonics and a pretty decent noise floor. I would be interested to understand how you are using this to set up your cartridge. (I have never used this method).

Hi Dave, I get what you are stating about published specs. That said, the published specs on my current cartridge have proved quite accurate.

the plot above is 1 channel, 1khz signal, its harmonics, derived from a test disk. I repeat the test at different times during either cartridge break-in and/or different VTF and/or SRA setups and enter the data, per channel, into the appropriate chart for comparison. The above is just one of many charts generated using different tracks within the test disk(s). Sometimes one channel reacts more than others, which can often signal an azimuth issue or skewed anti-skate setting(which contrary to belief, should near always be set at absolute minimum). Sometimes the differences are simply inherited within a specific cartridge. Other tests, high-frequency tracking/distortions, Xtalk, separation and tracking capability based on increasing modulation, are even more useful when establishing best-case alignments. Future testing can be used in comparison to help establish aging.

The only problem with doing measurements like this is that the same cartridge installed in a different turntable will more than likely not measure the same.

yes, never-mind that the same test record itself can measure differently if LP azimuth in relation to the stylus does not remain a constant, and different testing records often measure differently. I try and keep things as constant as possible, example ... if I'm testing different SRA combined with different VTF settings, which is very time consuming, the test LP must remain on the 'table, locked by a clamp in the exact same position for the duration of tests.

Proper azimuth (or best case azimuth) is the #1 priority when trying to attaining even moderately good results, even if SRA isn't optimum. (notice I rarely mention VTA, which should always be near parallel, otherwise azimuth errors are compounded) This is why I advise, especially to newbies, against purchasing carts with aggressive cuts of stylus, for the simple reason, they are far more prone to azimuth errors. In fact, the only time I think aggressive stylus can provide any advantage is when mated to turntables that can "lock" down the LP - perfectly flat - to the platter, by means of either vacuum (not a fan) or clamp/peripheral weight (fan of certain clamps, not a fan peripheral weights).

 

[pastorbarrett]

I guess vinyl replay isn't to everyone's taste in these parts, but it'd be great to see some sort of compendium of your set-up and measurement techniques for turntables @TBone, if there isn't something already in existence?

 

[JP]

@SIY, what loading did you settle on for the P100CMK4?

 

[SIY]

The nice thing about the ultra-low inductance is that, unlike cartridges like the A-T 150MLX, loading has far less effect. I just went with 47k and the combined native input capacitance from the cabling and preamp (about 60 pF or so) and didn't fiddle further. Back in the day, before I went balanced, the input C was higher because of coax rather than balanced mic cable, but that was 35 years ago and I don't pretend to have that kind of aural memory.

Right now, my phono priority is to get the SP10 II working again after its stroke.

 

[JP]

Pretty much the same here. I've ~5" of Mogami W2552 from the arm to the balanced flat pre, and from there to an ADC and DSP for RIAA.

 

[TBone]

I guess vinyl replay isn't to everyone's taste in these parts, but it'd be great to see some sort of compendium of your set-up and measurement techniques for turntables @TBone, if there isn't something already in existence?

only the following ...
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/clamping-lps-the-tbone-way.3353/

I've considered doing other posts on the subject of turntable setups, but ...

As with clamping, most, if not near every audiophile I know, seem to ignore many basic, but critical factors during setup. No wonder opinions on setup & equipment are all over the place.

Since the north is besieged by major wild fires, crimping my valuable fishing time, I'm forced back to town, so perhaps I should take the time to post about setup in a more comprehensive manner. However, for the time being, here are just a few brief opinions on common errors I see with setup, that even the "pro's" consistently make. I made them also, but no more. These are all based on plenty trial, and lots and lots of error. Take 'em for what they're worth; which maybe nothing.

Azimuth, the most critical of all. However, one should never really have to adjust azimuth on the arm past a level setting, that is, IF the cartridge manufacturers properly do their job. Carts should all be designed for a flat/parallel setup, the stylus should be mounted on the cantilever perfectly so as to have no need for tonearm azimuth adjustments, past level. Otherwise, they introduce more potential errors into the mix, that are much harder to resolve.

We pay good money for cartridges, so we should expect proper stylus/cantilever orientation. You maybe surprised how often I've seen skewed stylus/cantilever orientations, under a microscope, even with brand new models. One company, in particular, has provided very consistent results, IMO, you can't go wrong with Nagaoka's, superb carts, very low moving mass, and reasonably priced. Love the fact they don't change models like I change underwear. IMO, they have little need for change, they got it right in the first place ... unlike Ortofon and others, who seem to make newer "better" carts near every half-year. As far as I'm concerned, quality control should be the number one priority for cartridge manufacturers, even with entry level alternatives.

Same with VTA, the arm should always be parallel to the platter, otherwise azimuth errors compound. Negative VTA, or "tail-dragging", is absolutely one of the worst thing you can do to ANY cartridge, even if that's the only way to optimize SRA, esp. during the critical break-in period.
Near everyone now-a-days claims SRA should be set around 92 degrees, but in reality it should be set slightly higher, around 93 degrees. SRA is always set in a static position, but under load, things change.

Excessive, even moderate, Ant-Skate compensation damages carts, sonically and physically. AS is required, but it should always be set at minimum. Again, especially important during the break-in period, as the cart settles-in for life. As the stylus pulls inwards, the AS mechanism pulls in the opposing direction, but not directly on the stylus, rather at the pivot, meaning the entire tonearm. That "compensation" (and it does not take much over a period of time) can easily offset cantilever / stylus alignment, especially with higher compliance models. It also offsets the internal generator, the magnets/coils no longer align optimally. Long term use of excessive AS skate, or even moderate AS, will often permanent offset the cantilever ... I've witnessed far too many carts/stylus with permanently offset cantilevers and excessive wear on only one side of the stylus, well before they hit 500hrs.

Past the above, all I can say is that the turntable (and arm), are just as, if not more important than any choice of cart, especially in terms of noise floor. Lowering the noise floor maybe more critical than many 'philes think, because it doesn't take much noise to swamp out minute details. My biggest gains in relation to achieving greater overall detail, especially low frequency accuracy, have all been based on minimizing turntable noise & resonances. And make no mistake, all turntables are resonant / noisy affairs, to one degree or another ... but how those resonances are controlled and/or dissipated is a saga worthy of its own post.

HTH

 

[Guermantes]

The nice thing about the ultra-low inductance is that, unlike cartridges like the A-T 150MLX, loading has far less effect. I just went with 47k and the combined native input capacitance from the cabling and preamp (about 60 pF or so) and didn't fiddle further. Back in the day, before I went balanced, the input C was higher because of coax rather than balanced mic cable, but that was 35 years ago and I don't pretend to have that kind of aural memory.

Interesting. As the 150MLX is my main cartridge, do you have a ballpark recommendation for loading? I believe the cartridge is about 360 mH.

 

[SIY]

Yes, 100-150pF. This is fiendishly difficult to do, between the cable capacitance and the actual preamp input capacitance (for some reason, Miller capacitance never seems to make it into the spec-writers' hands...). I had to design a low Cin preamp specifically to accommodate it (see Linear Audio, volume 8). Get the capacitance too high (which is typical) and the treble rise is an ear-laser.