I've been trying to decide between getting a phono preamp (so I can use MC cartridges with my turn table) and just getting a good MM cartridge. Are MC cartridges really that much better than a similarly priced MM cartridge to justify the cost of getting a phono preamp to be able to use them? What's the real world difference, in terms of audibility, between an MC cartridge and an MM cartridge?
MC vs MM Phono Cartridges
- Thread starter TronII
- Start date
-
- Tags
- mm/mc phono pre-amplifier
old tech
500+ Head-Fier
In my experience, MC cartridges sound better but at a much higher cost. If you are looking a similar priced cartridges I'd be surprised if you find a better MC cartridge over a MM.
Not only are MC cartridges higher cost (both to purchase and re tipping the stylus), they can take more effort to set up properly (eg capacitance loading with the pre-amp). However in my view, given the limitations of vinyl playback and transducers, the extra cost and effort of MC cartridges are worth it. The link below provides a good overview of the advantages/disadavantages of each type and the music they are best suited to.
https://www.perreaux.com/blog/2017/9/8/moving-magnet-vs-moving-coil-phono-cartridges
Btw, you need a pre-amp (or at least a phono circuit) with either cartridge, unless it is built into your turntable. MC requires more sophisticated circuitry designed for the low voltage output. They are also less forgiving on other deficiencies you may have in your turntable/cart set up.
My turntable has a built-in preamp, but not one that's compatible with MC cartridges.
Thank you for the article, as well. I think I'll stick with MM cartridges, thanks to the explanation of pros and cons.
old tech
500+ Head-Fier
Yes, I think you are better off sticking with MM cartridges unless you wanted to spend more money on a MC (and likely a new tone arm) and a decent pre-amp. A good MM cartridge is certainly good enough for a decent sound.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
I've had both MC and MM cartridges, and to be honest how well the cartridge tracks is a lot more important. I couldn't really see an advantage to MC, but I had a Grado cartridge for my Thorens that didn't track well at all, while Grado worked fantastic on my Dual. Every cart is a little bit different, so it's like headphones... hard to make generalizations. Best to ask a tech who specializes in turntables for recommendations and let him set up your cart and headshell.
Last edited:
analogsurviver
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Posts
- 4,480
- Likes
- 371
MM vs MC is a theme older than the hills. And it is FAR from finished article - nor it is anything written in stone. Recent resurrection of the vinyl as a viable medium for music has finally allowed some of the concepts from the very peak of the analog (end of 70s, beginning 80s ) to finally come into fruition - after having been crushed commercially in the wake of CD success for almost 4 decades.
Improvements are staggering - but, unfortunately, so are the prices of these new breeds. And MC can no longer claim to be the absolute king of the hill. There has also been advances in phono preamps - particularly those involving current instead of voltage amplification. So that any generalizing that still held the water a decade ago has been flushed down the drain. What once has been the exclusive arena for MCs had to - unwillingly, grudgingly, accompanied by the typical audiophile traditional conservative opinions and beliefs - become shared or even relinquished to the best MMs can offer.
I do not want to be too long here - so, I will ask the blunt question; how much money we are talking about and what is the presently available equipment that will be carried further and used with whatever new additions. The price ranges are mind boggling - a cart alone can cost south of 30K, we have reached the cost of a single turntable burning a thousand thousands deep hole in one's pocket ( aka 1M - in Euro, not $ ) - yet a perfectly enjoyable analog record playback setup that will preserve the records for the future while sounding nice enough can be put together below 2K.
Improvements are staggering - but, unfortunately, so are the prices of these new breeds. And MC can no longer claim to be the absolute king of the hill. There has also been advances in phono preamps - particularly those involving current instead of voltage amplification. So that any generalizing that still held the water a decade ago has been flushed down the drain. What once has been the exclusive arena for MCs had to - unwillingly, grudgingly, accompanied by the typical audiophile traditional conservative opinions and beliefs - become shared or even relinquished to the best MMs can offer.
I do not want to be too long here - so, I will ask the blunt question; how much money we are talking about and what is the presently available equipment that will be carried further and used with whatever new additions. The price ranges are mind boggling - a cart alone can cost south of 30K, we have reached the cost of a single turntable burning a thousand thousands deep hole in one's pocket ( aka 1M - in Euro, not $ ) - yet a perfectly enjoyable analog record playback setup that will preserve the records for the future while sounding nice enough can be put together below 2K.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
It's still an LP record, which means that no matter what you do, it won't perform as well as a CD. It's a great rabbit hole for those looking for a fetish though. It can certainly keep you busy worrying about all the largely uncontrollable variables.
analogsurviver
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Posts
- 4,480
- Likes
- 371
Variables in LP playback are numerous - but they are not largely uncontrollable.
How well a LP and CD perform is debatable - at least. It is perhaps fairer to say that CD performance is more predictable than LP - where there can be quality so superior to CD to be mind boggling - and, unfortunately, poor beyond description.
Digital audio - if it is to perform at anything higher in quality than RBCD - can be MORE daunting to keep going than a decent turntable. One OS update - and all the painstakingly set up and adjusted parameters can be back to square one...
I know IT guys who make a living with computers - and who go ballistic the moment one mentions music and computer in a single sentence - letr alone having to think which plugin and which whatnot works with which type of files. There is a software requiring a PC, Android and - ultimately - ANOTHER, second PC ; just to play DSD correctly.
Even the most complicated turntable to be put together from ground up sounds like vacation to me in comparison; YMMV .
But, it is true that it is a rabbit hole par excellence - if not experienced enough. Most certainly, all records can not be payed back using the same turntable and cartridge/tonearm combination - the span of roughly 70 years vinyl is around has seen enough changes that prevent it. The most basic is the Vertical Tracking Angle - which initially went from whatever anybody used trough standardization to 15 degrees - only to be changed later to 20 degree, which is in practice often higher still. So, at least rough year of the actual record production should be known - and an appropriate cartridge/stylus used. For 15 degrees, that means today hunting NOS or still usable vintage models.
How well a LP and CD perform is debatable - at least. It is perhaps fairer to say that CD performance is more predictable than LP - where there can be quality so superior to CD to be mind boggling - and, unfortunately, poor beyond description.
Digital audio - if it is to perform at anything higher in quality than RBCD - can be MORE daunting to keep going than a decent turntable. One OS update - and all the painstakingly set up and adjusted parameters can be back to square one...
I know IT guys who make a living with computers - and who go ballistic the moment one mentions music and computer in a single sentence - letr alone having to think which plugin and which whatnot works with which type of files. There is a software requiring a PC, Android and - ultimately - ANOTHER, second PC ; just to play DSD correctly.
Even the most complicated turntable to be put together from ground up sounds like vacation to me in comparison; YMMV .
But, it is true that it is a rabbit hole par excellence - if not experienced enough. Most certainly, all records can not be payed back using the same turntable and cartridge/tonearm combination - the span of roughly 70 years vinyl is around has seen enough changes that prevent it. The most basic is the Vertical Tracking Angle - which initially went from whatever anybody used trough standardization to 15 degrees - only to be changed later to 20 degree, which is in practice often higher still. So, at least rough year of the actual record production should be known - and an appropriate cartridge/stylus used. For 15 degrees, that means today hunting NOS or still usable vintage models.
sander99
Headphoneus Supremus
Superior to audible transparent, talk about mind boggling!
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Debatable in this case just means resistant to facts.
analogsurviver
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2012
- Posts
- 4,480
- Likes
- 371
@bigshot
Debatable in this case just means resistant to facts.
Hey - you are in the very wrong thread.
High time you do get to listen to a properly recorded analog records using proper record record playback equipment. At least once ...
Then it should be crystal clear where the prescribed and absolutely rigidly defined limitations of CD lie - and that what has been achieved with analog in 70s and 80s can not be replicated with CD.
CD is audibly transparent ONLY and IF the original recording is limited to RBCD. The moment it stumbles on anything capable of greater bandwidth, be it analog or digital, it shatters to pieces. It ceases to exist - at least as what regards to audible fidelity.
"Old" wisdom regarding the difference between MMs and MCs dealt mainly with the fact that a "typical" MM cartridge had a more limited and, above all, electrical load dependent frequency response than a "typical" MC cartridge. Before you write any reply, do study this : http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
Today, there ARE phono cartridges ( and at least their harbingers have been around for 4 decades by now ) that behave in electrical and/or mechanical sense emulating the "other" type - and combining the best of both worlds in the process. Yes, they are expensive - and due to the social system we are forced to live in, they are unlikely to trickle down in price - at least not any time soon.
You will have to decide; either stubbornly defend your position and be left behind while losing any credibility - or risk it and have some proper demo of state of the art analog in a high enough quality system.
To be PERFECTLY clear; usable digital is incomparably less expensive than usable analog. Analog that can justify its existence today has to offer something more, something that digital is still not capable of delivering ( it is on the verge, but not yet at the consumer level ). That in practice means - the best. And that is inevitably expensive.
Since you are familiar with at least one better brand of phono cartridges ( Grado ), please do check their range, specs and pricing ... - but, in principle, it is the very same design, from the cheapest ever made and marketed to the costliest ever made and marketed. The price ratio is - roughly - 1000 :1 ( in direct $ at the time of the appearance of the models ) or, very roughly compensated for the interim inflation - 250:1.
Only a person who has enough experience in performance of phono cartridges and has at least attempted to produce anything even approaching these quality levels, will understand and appreciate these ratios - and find them fully justified.
In analog world, one does get what one pays for ... - and the higher the frequency, at which phono cartridge still has controlled response, the higher the price. Even the least expensive Grado cart has a very respectable performance in what you call core frequency range - but the plethora of models between it and the top performing model each brings incrementally something more to the table - something resulting in incrementally audibly better reproduction.
Even if their measurements in 20 to 20k band are almost identical.
And, if those differences were not real and not audible - how would you explain Grado ( or any other phono cartridge manufacturer ) to not only be still around in 2020, churning not only old models - but actively pursuing further refinement ?
Debatable in this case just means resistant to facts.
Hey - you are in the very wrong thread.
High time you do get to listen to a properly recorded analog records using proper record record playback equipment. At least once ...
Then it should be crystal clear where the prescribed and absolutely rigidly defined limitations of CD lie - and that what has been achieved with analog in 70s and 80s can not be replicated with CD.
CD is audibly transparent ONLY and IF the original recording is limited to RBCD. The moment it stumbles on anything capable of greater bandwidth, be it analog or digital, it shatters to pieces. It ceases to exist - at least as what regards to audible fidelity.
"Old" wisdom regarding the difference between MMs and MCs dealt mainly with the fact that a "typical" MM cartridge had a more limited and, above all, electrical load dependent frequency response than a "typical" MC cartridge. Before you write any reply, do study this : http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html
Today, there ARE phono cartridges ( and at least their harbingers have been around for 4 decades by now ) that behave in electrical and/or mechanical sense emulating the "other" type - and combining the best of both worlds in the process. Yes, they are expensive - and due to the social system we are forced to live in, they are unlikely to trickle down in price - at least not any time soon.
You will have to decide; either stubbornly defend your position and be left behind while losing any credibility - or risk it and have some proper demo of state of the art analog in a high enough quality system.
To be PERFECTLY clear; usable digital is incomparably less expensive than usable analog. Analog that can justify its existence today has to offer something more, something that digital is still not capable of delivering ( it is on the verge, but not yet at the consumer level ). That in practice means - the best. And that is inevitably expensive.
Since you are familiar with at least one better brand of phono cartridges ( Grado ), please do check their range, specs and pricing ... - but, in principle, it is the very same design, from the cheapest ever made and marketed to the costliest ever made and marketed. The price ratio is - roughly - 1000 :1 ( in direct $ at the time of the appearance of the models ) or, very roughly compensated for the interim inflation - 250:1.
Only a person who has enough experience in performance of phono cartridges and has at least attempted to produce anything even approaching these quality levels, will understand and appreciate these ratios - and find them fully justified.
In analog world, one does get what one pays for ... - and the higher the frequency, at which phono cartridge still has controlled response, the higher the price. Even the least expensive Grado cart has a very respectable performance in what you call core frequency range - but the plethora of models between it and the top performing model each brings incrementally something more to the table - something resulting in incrementally audibly better reproduction.
Even if their measurements in 20 to 20k band are almost identical.
And, if those differences were not real and not audible - how would you explain Grado ( or any other phono cartridge manufacturer ) to not only be still around in 2020, churning not only old models - but actively pursuing further refinement ?
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
