Time to reappraise MM cartridges?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#21
For the technically interested -

You can find the article 'Equivalent mass - fact or fiction' at vinylengine's forum:

Equivalent Mass, Fact or Fiction? - Audio March 1978 - Vinyl Engine

Registration is free and certainly worth the hassle if one is interested in the technical details as there is more material in the forum.

One quote from the linked article:

In the three other types, B, C, and D, the largest single contributor of the equivalent mass is the shank, perhaps suggesting that further reductions might be possible in this area. The shank, rather than the transducer principle, might be seen as the most limiting present problem since it is common to practically all pickups.
Click to expand...

Please note the article discusses only MM and MI cartridges, no MCs. In the not mentioned type A (a Moving Iron cart) the large iron piece is the main contributor.

However the same result applies to MCs. The article also shows nicely that the equivalent tip mass determines trackability; the lower the tip mass, the better the trackability. MMs are known for their superior trackability, so in fact have a lower tip mass. This very much identifies the heavy magnet argument as an urban legend.

Lowest effective tip mass cartridge ever (Technics EPC100C Mk4) was an MM.
Click to expand...

Sy, that's an excellent point!

By the way, there is a pretty large market today with the top MM-cartridges of the 80ies and even 70ies. The top tiers achieve huge prices and the said Technics cartridge goes for prices that are impressive.
 
#22
billshurv said:
So we have several votes for MC being 'more detailed'. Has anyone ever tried to work out how to find a measurable parameter that could demonstrate that, or understand the mechanisms that would cause it?
Click to expand...

Look at square wave response. Most MCs ring like a bell. There's your "detail."

If a cartridge resolves the cutterhead ringing on the top of a square wave, and doesn't overlay its own, you've got a winner.
 
#26
On test records, it's pre-equalized, so you get something more or less square wave-ish. Typically some overshoot on the leading edge, then ringing along the top. You can separate the cutterhead ringing from the cartridge ringing by changing the turntable speed- the ringing which doesn't change frequency is from the cartridge, the ringing that does change frequency is from the cutterhead.
 
#32
kevinkr said:
I'm pretty happy with the cartridges I've got. (Not a fan of the SS strain gauge, and yes I have heard it.)
Click to expand...

I am happy with what I have at the moment, but I've realised I never gave MM or MI a good crack of the whip and I really ought to. Seems that, with the tip choices around now there has never been a better time to to experiment; at least if you can keep the OCD under control!
 
#33
G'day all, a most interesting thread! I am a long time fan of a couple of quite basic (and budget priced) moving magnet cartridges (Shure M97xE with the OEM stylus and the Ortofon Super OM10), for a couple of reasons.

A replaceable stylus is a big reason, and additionally moving magnet cartridges can give excellent performance in just about every way. These two certainly do. However being relatively high coil inductance, general set up and in particular electrical loading is critical for the best possible sonic performance.

In particular the Shure M97xE is particularly critical in this respect but optimise the electrical loading (47 k with 250 to 300 picofarads 'overall'), and it's a very satisfying sounding moving magnet phono cartridge with excellent tracking at a low 1.25 grams.

Likewise the Ortofon Super OM 10 which actually sounds its best with a bit more load capacitance 47 k with around 400 picofarads. Yes I really like moving magnet phono cartridges, but they demand optimum and careful set up....and a very good phono stage helps too! Regards, Felix.
 
Last edited:
#34
They don't sound better or worse - they or MC's sound different as different mm's, mi's or mc's do within their groups. Can't decide which way it is really 🙂. I appreciate them all🙂

Regards
 
Last edited:
#35
fap said:
In particular the Shure M97xE is particularly critical in this respect but optimise the electrical loading (47 k with 250 to 300 picofarads 'overall'), and it's a very satisfying sounding moving magnet phono cartridge with excellent tracking at a low 1.25 grams.
Click to expand...

The A-T 150MLX that I'm using is even more finicky- and it requires LOW input capacitance. Looking at the graph below, is it any wonder that when people plug it into a typical phono preamp and use typical cables, they complain that it sounds too bright?
 

Attachments

#39
It's very good. Very good indeed. It tracks everything I throw at it and seems to give a similar spectral balance as digital. I still pine for my old EPC100C4, but the 150MLX handily outperforms most of the MCs that have gone through here. But it really took some care in setup and amplification.
 
#40
I've seen response curves from certain retipped/re-cantilevered DL-103 that looked even worse than SY's graphs to my not inconsiderable surprise. I guess if you are a deaf 50+ yr old (I am! 😛 ) then this might tend to be preferred. 😉 [More perceived HF air and detail? 😱 ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom