|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.130.29.193
In Reply to: RE: MM vs MC is MC THAT much better? posted by MannyE on December 29, 2016 at 05:54:12
You probably need to try a LOMC cartridge and decide for yourself. There are advocates on both sides of the fence.
Try one of the lower cost MC cartridges that have gained a good reputation such as Denon's DL-103, DL-103R, DL-301II and Audio Technica's AT33EV.
You might decide you like MM cartridges just as well or even better. Personally, I like LOMC cartridges better than all the MM cartridges I've tried, but that's just me.
From an objective point of view, I believe LOMC cartridges are better because of their lower inductance coils. In fact, over the years I've discovered that the best sounding cartridges always had the lowest induction coils, even among LOMC cartridges. These were the ultra low-output moving coil cartridges like the original Ortofon MC-2000 with a rated output of only 50-microvolts. Currently, I use an Audio Technica AT-ART7 with rated output of 0.12-mV and a Denon DL-S1 with rated output of 0.15-mV.
Good luck,
John Elison
Follow Ups:
Interesting observation. Any idea why the DLS-1 has such a low output? The two ways I know to lower the inductance are fewer turns and a nonmagnetic former. Since the Z is 33 ohms it seems like the turns count is similar to the 103 unless it uses exceedingly fine wire and I couldn't find any info on the former.
dave
the DL-S1 was wound with gold wire. Might that have caused a comparatively reduced output?
Jeremy
The S1 (like the 304) has the coils wound on a non-permeable material. This has the advantage of reducing non-linearities due to the permeable material.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
besides inductance, etc, that I find to affect my aural experience of LOMC cartridges is compliance. I have consistently tended to prefer the sound of higher compliance LOMCs. And of course none of them can be as high in compliance as a typical MM cartridge. Which I think is a critical advantage of the latter vs a typical LOMC that has not been mentioned in this discussion. And maybe this is why many of us find a lot to love with MM and MI cartridges. (Perhaps we should not be lumping MM and MI, either.)
With a MM you can use more easily a top notch tube phono stage and that brings the MM performance up a whole lot. My Audio Technica AT-150MLX + Silvaweld setup outperforms a friend's Transfiguration Proteus with a Pass XP15 for a whole heck of a lot less money.
I had some nice LOMCs like a Lyra Dorian and then an upper model (name escapes just now). It was good but the Audio Technica has more energy and life with similar resolution and a bit less refinement.
I think it is no surprise that when Michael Fremer did a MM shootout the Audio Technica AT-150ANV got a higher blind rating than his Ortofon MC Anna!
I bought an AT150ANV on the basis of that shootout and have never really warmed up to it. I like the Ortofon 2M Black better, and I like the Cadenza Black better yet, and I like the Winfeld the best of all that I own. So that shootout is questionable to me. You might recall that Mikey forgot about balancing out the levels too. Methinks the AT150ANV must have been louder than the others.
I'm not a fan of the voicing of the AT MMs. I have a recent 150MLX which shares the same specification as the ANV (but without the sapphire pipe) and have tried it many times but still finding myself going away from it. For high output MMs, I still prefer the V15VMR or the Stanton 881 or CS100.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Anthony,
Your tastes and mine are clearly similar. I ,too, have a V15Vxmr that I like a lot and a Stanton 881 that I like a lot. Haven't heard the CS100, though. And as I have already opined, the AT150ANV has been a disappointment.
Bill
Yes, it would appear so - I dare say we also share the same curiousity in hearing what different cartridges sound like hence we both seem to have quite a large selection!!
I would say that the 881 has a slightly "warmer" sound to it compared to the CS100. The CS100 on the other hand has a very "fast" and clear sound that borders on the slightly cool side of neutral, but it is nevertheless very transparent. It is not too different to the V15VMR with a JICO SAS tip. However, none of the high output MMs can touch the low impedance design for soundstage realism and neutrality to me. I think Walter Stanton must have been very frustrated that popular opinion in the Audio press focussed on a belief that MCs sounded good by virtue of the transducer principle rather than the engineering related aspects and this negatively impacted on sales and the LZS bodies disappeared too soon.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
If all it takes is playing your music a decibel or two louder, we can save ourselves a whole lot of money on cartridges. As for me, I don't think volume level should make any difference between a nine thousand dollar cartridge and a nine hundred dollar cartridge. I think this comparison is proof that ultra expensive high-end components are total bullshit. But, to each his own! YMMV, etc.
Best regards,
John Elison
I do share your sentiments on his John , well until recently when i had the opportunity to listen to a really high dollar analog rig ( 150K +) the difference is in the refinement not in the bells and whistle, Much darker back ground from the CD silent needle to groove , no timbre change with increased volume and a level of refinement so easily noticeable its surreal....
Manny ,
my 2C take on this , TT/Arm / phonostage , with phono stage being the most important then Cartridge to match arm , TT combo . Arm quality and adjustability is everything with cartridges , the setup is everything in hearing Any cartridge , many high dollar analog rigs fail to impress due to poor tonearm setup..
Phono cartridges , all of them have their own house sound , very rare to find anyone involved in analog with one cartridge , some of us may have "settled " on a particular Brand after trying many others , mostly this settling comes from our maturing fixed system and not from one being better than the other , recessed sounding speakers will require a more forward or bright sounding cartridge for eg , selecting "your" one cartridge to purchase could turn out more difficult than you think , take up Bills offer , you will learn alot from the comparisons , take your table too if allowed ...
Regards
Where did Manny go ... ?
In my opinion, the ultra expensive high-end is all about ego and status. It has nothing to do with sound quality.
You say you've listened to a $150k+ analog front end. Well, so have I! I've listened to several in that price range and I even made hi-res digital recordings of a Rockport Sirius III with van den Hul Colibri cartridge and darTZeel phono preamp. I still have those recordings and I don't think they necessarily sound any better than my own $20,000 analog front-end.
Therefore, in my opinion, it all depends on what we want to believe we hear and how much value we place on the differences we want to believe we hear. As for me, there is no turntable, cartridge and phono stage worth more than $20,000 based on sound quality alone. But, that's just my opinion based on comparing my own equipment to other much more expensive playback systems. That's not to say I haven't heard a vinyl front-end that sounds better to me than my own. I have, but it didn't cost more than $20,000.
I've been making hi-res digital recordings of vinyl since I bought my first DAT recorder in 1991 and I fully understand and appreciate how accurate hi-res digital can be in capturing the sound of vinyl. Therefore, I have no doubt that Michael Fremer's needle drops in his comparison test of nine cartridges are accurate and representative of the actual sound quality of those cartridges including his own ultra expensive vinyl front-end. Of course, your opinion may differ from mine, but it's not because I don't have direct experience with other ultra expensive vinyl front-ends.
To each his own! YMMV, etc, etc.
Thanks,
John Elison
Regarding MF's 9-way shootout, one would have thought that if the mantra that "source is king" applies, regardless of the expense/cheapness of the downstream ancillaries used, then the Caliburn/Anna combination needledrop would have been an automatic winner, idiosyncracies of the respondents systems notwithstanding.
In other words, "quality will out". The fact that it didn't in this case is perplexing (for MF at least...) ;^)
Regarding the OP's question it's often been said that MM or MC, cheap or expensive, it matters little provided the cart is mounted on a first-class, well set up, platform, (admittedly with a commensurate phono stage) which is why you'll often see cheap classic Denon's etc performing in ridiculously expensive tonearms.
Interestingly, ultra high end MC carts are still available as med-high output (needless to say they've covered the bases by having low output variants of the same cartridge for hardy souls who enjoy the quest for 20K phono stages ;^)
Hi John,
Within limits (that are subjective and not defined) I think your point is quite valid. We tend to judge components subjectively and our standard of comparison tends to be other components. Does A sound better, or B sound better? That type of thing. We ask ourselves questions like this rather than does A sound like the original, or does B sound more like the original? Of course we don't have access to the original in most cases. The two guys who actually compared the sound of cartridges to the sound of the masters that were made to cut the discs in the first place were Doug Sax and Gordon Holt. They both preferred MM cartridges. Sax liked the Stanton 681 series, and Holt liked the Shure V15 series. On the other hand, different cartridges do sound different from each other. But we should not delude ourselves by claiming too much for our choices. I still own and enjoy a V15-Vmr mounted on an SME Series III arm. But is it total bull shit to also own and enjoy newer more expensive cartridges? I dunno. Like you said, YRMV.
Well, I plan to buy another MM cartridge. I'm waiting for the new line of Audio Technica cartridge to become available. The last MM cartridge I owned was the Shure V15VxMR and I didn't like it as much as any of my low-output moving coils. I'm hoping the new line of AT cartridges will impress me.
With regard to comparisons, you're right that most of us don't have the master tape to allow cartridge comparisons and vinyl comparisons to the source from which they were cut. We can only make judgements as to whether this cartridge sounds better than that cartridge. Still, it's fun to compare.
Best regards,
John Elison
John,
I have that AT150ANV that I would be happy to loan to you for evaluation. Interestingly enough I never liked it all that much, but love my Shure V15VxMR. I also have a Stanton 881 that still impresses me. Another very highly regarded MM is the Goldring 1042 (and related 1012), which is still in production. I have not heard them, but a lot of ink has been spilled praising the Soundsmith line. I never really liked the B&O cartridges, though, and that is the design that inspired the Soundsmiths. On the other hand, you seem very satisfied with your AT MC and there is nothing wrong with them at all. I have a much less expensive AT33 Mono ANV and it is an extremely satisfactory cartridge. Let me know if you want me to send the AT150ANV to you.
Bill
Hi Bill,
I plan to buy one of the new Audio Technica MM cartridges as soon as I can find out where to buy them. I'm rather partial to aluminum cantilevers and it seems all the new ones have aluminum cantilevers. I think I might feel the same as you about the AT150ANV, but I appreciate the offer. If you intend to sell it, you should probably keep it as new as possible. Therefore, I'll pass on borrowing it.
Thanks again,
John Elison
I am with you on tapered aluminum cantilevers. Many of the cartridges that I prefer have them. No intention of selling the AT150ANV, hadn't given any thought to it. The only audio component I have sold in perhaps the past 35 years has been my KAB modified SL1200Mk2. The new SL 1200GAE is getting a lot of use and I may wind up deciding to sell my Prime too. VPI is promising a mod for the 3D arm and I would like to give that a try before deciding. Also, after all the effort invested in getting my Prime to sound it's best, it would be a shame to give it up. If you change your mind on trying the AT150ANV the offer is open.
I wish you hadn't sold your KAB SL-1200 Mk2. It would have been interesting to compare the Mk2 to the GAE. I own a KAB SL-1200 Mk2 and I think it sounds very good.
Best regards,
John Elison
Oh I compared the two extensively. My MK2 had the following KAB modifications: Arm damping both internal and external, Cardas wiring, external PSU, record clamp. It sounded very good and I liked it a lot. The GAE simply sounds better. The difference I mostly attribute to the arm. A brighter more open sound. Better delineation of detail. More air, better bass definition - rosen on the bow stuff. All of this was noticeable, but certainly it was not a great difference. At the same time, the things that I admired in the MK2 were retained in the GAE. The ergonomics are superb, easy to set up, change cartridges, cue, all these things make both TTs a delight to use. In terms of the value factor the GAE cost $4k, the G costs something around $2700 (which has the magnesium arm), a clean MK2 with KAB mods something less than $1500 tops. Is it worth the difference? That is a tough call. I think the G version is for a person with audiophile sensibilities. But look at it another way. My Prime cost $4K but then I added an Eagle and Roadrunner (thanks to you and thanks again), a periphery ring, HRX pulley and extra belts, Counterintuitive, lots of futzing around because the pivot to spindle distance was out of spec etc. and lo and behold it is a $6k combination. The G or even the GAE is a no-brainer in this comparison.Bill
Edits: 01/09/17
> I think it is no surprise that when Michael Fremer did a MM shootout the Audio Technica AT-150ANV got a higher blind rating than his Ortofon MC Anna!
The real expensive stuff is basically just a status symbol. You can nearly always do as well or better for a reasonable price. I quit buying mega-buck cartridges years ago after discovering a Denon DL-103R sounded better than my Dynavector XV-1. The DL-103R also measured better in all parameters except frequency response and channel balance. It had four times less distortion but its frequency response was not nearly as flat as the Dynavector XV-1, which had the flattest frequency response of any cartridge I've ever measured. However, one of my favorite cartridges to date is the Denon DL-S1.
.
.
.
.
Why do you think that LOMC cartridges cannot be high-compliance cartridges? I'm pretty sure they can be made any compliance you desire.
My AT-ART7 has compliance in the neighborhood of 26-cu to 30-cu at its resonance frequency. I wish it had medium-compliance because both my tonearms are medium-mass tonearms, but I bought two AT-ART7's and they are both high-compliance cartridges just like the new AT-ART9 and AT-OC9/III, which both have dynamic compliance specified as 18-cu @ 100-Hz. I suspect that Audio Technica mistakenly installed ART9 suspension into both the ART7 cartridges I bought or else they changed the compliance of the ART7 to match the ART9. Whatever the case, all of these cartridges would be right at home in an Infinity Black Widow tonearm or an SME III.
Some years back I owned a Denon DL-301II and its compliance at resonance was about 26-cu. The original Ortofon MC-2000 that I owned was specified to have compliance of 20-cu, but it actually was more like 24-cu at resonance in my SME III tonearm.
My DL-S1 cartridges are both medium-compliance cartridges with dynamic compliance at resonance of about 17-cu. See the link below:
I certainly did not mean to imply that LOMC cartridges cannot be made to be high in compliance. Perhaps my choice of words might lead you to think so, for which I apologize. But the fact is that most LOMC cartridges are low to very low in compliance. You and I agree on the ART7 and on the Ortofon MC2000, as exceptions to the rule, with relatively high compliance. I own one of each, and I like them both very much. I have no doubt that the Denon DLS1 also has its virtues. My point was that on average, MM cartridges are higher to much higher in compliance than the typical LOMC. Perhaps you don't agree. At any rate, I attribute the superior capability of the better MM and MI cartridges to reproduce accurately the sounds of a piano (attack, timbre, and decay) to their higher compliance. In so doing, perhaps I am committing the typical audiophile sin of confusing correlation with cause and effect. I admit that's possible.
Is your AT-ART7 also high-compliance? Mine has a resonance frequency in-between 6 and 7-Hz in my 10.5-gram SME V. It is specified to have compliance of 10-cu at 100-Hz, which would be medium compliance, but both of the ones I bought were high-compliance cartridges.
On the other hand, the new AT-ART9 and the new AT-OC9/III are both specified as high-compliance cartridges with 18-cu at 100-Hz. The general rule-of-thumb is to double that for compliance at 10-Hz.
Maybe I should buy a MM cartridge. What would you recommend? I was thinking that an Audio Technica AT150MLX might be a good one. It is specified as medium-compliance with a rated output of 4.0-mV. What do you think? Is there a better one you would recommend?
Thanks,
John Elison
My inclination would be to find a Grace F9E or Ruby in good physical condition, if for a reasonable price, and then have it re-tipped by Sound Smith with their top of the line OCL stylus/ruby cantilever. SS sort of specializes in the Grace Ruby re-tip, as well as in B&O cartridge restoration. (Which makes B&O top of the line models, MMC1, MMC2, MM20CL, also appealing.)
About 5 years ago, I got a Grace Ruby off eBay with no cantilever at all; it was totally missing, but the body was "like new". I sent that off to SS. At that point in time, I also owned a functional Grace Ruby with its original stylus, which I liked very much. I had hopes that the re-tip would sound as good, but in fact the re-tip is significantly better. It took about 20-30 hours to get there, but at that point it really bloomed. I keep thinking I should send my old Ruby to SS for the same treatment, while we are still lucky enough to have Peter Ledermann around. There's a bunch of other vintage MM and MI cartridges to love, but I realize that finding them in good condition is a crap shoot that not everyone wants to engage in.
All of my MM cartridges are vintage, so I don't know much about the current crop, except that Nagaoka, AT, Ortofon, and a few others get good reviews. I used to like my Grado TLZ quite a bit, but not all Grado's have the same "house sound" in my experience. I don't know which of their modern products would sound like a TLZ.
The 150MLX is not worth the current asking price. The specifications have shifted from the original and the current model doesn't have the same extended response as the original release from a few years ago -I have the latest version plus a few of the original styli so I have compared them.
Wait for the new VM540ML. The 740ML uses the same stylus assembly but in the gold coloured aluminium block of the current 150MLX. Not worth the extra IMO.
Alternatively go for the VM760SLC which has the same stylus as your ART7 if you want to compare. All the new MMs have a tapered aluminium cantilever - no exotic materials used anymore it would seem.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
You are talking about the replacement for the AT150MLX, right? The 150MLX is now discontinued.
I have one that I bought about 6 years ago that has the gold plated boron cantilever and microridge stylus. The current model has an aluminum pipe and a shibata stylus.
"The current model has an aluminum pipe and a shibata stylus."
That's the 150Sa which is a different model to the 150MLX.
I have original 150MLX styli and a new 150MLX which was made sometime after the 150ANV was released. The ATN150MLX stylus is the official replacement for the ANV.
Have a look at the instruction manual on the vinylengine for the ANV and look at the frequency response curve (and the spec) and compare to your original manual. The original 150MLX is quoted to extend to 30kHz. The new one (which I have) matches the curve for the ANV (with the sharp rise to peak at 18kHz) and the spec is only to 23kHz (matching the ANV). The VTF range for the ANV sets the nominal at 1.5g (1.3 to 1.8g). My 150MLX still quotes the original range from 0.75 to 1.75g but requires 1.5g to track up to 70um whereas the originals track 80um at 1.2g. I therefore conclude that my 150MLX was made post 150ANV with a stylus that could be used in the ANV to match the new specifications.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi John
These are the new AT MM range that Manfred was telling me about in another thread.
They appear to have standardised on one generator which now has a 460mH coil inductance and 800ohm DC resistance.
They also have a 78rpm model and a (internally strapped) mono cartridge.
You can move up and down the series simply by changing the stylus.
Here is the English page:
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Thanks, Anthony!
I wouldn't mind trying the Audio Technica VM760SLC . It appears to have an aluminum cantilever but I can't read Japanese. I wonder where I can buy one?
Best regards,
John Elison
John: You'll probably still have to wait a little, as that "new" VM5x0/6x0/7x0 family is just being introduced. I'd expect AT to show these at the CES (provided they have a booth there, of course, but I'd assume 'em to...), but I'd guess actual availability might take a couple of weeks more...
I wonder, why you'd want to go for the VM760SLC, though - because personally I wouldn't feel inclined to grab what would seem an only moderately sharp Ogura Vital over the slightly sharper Shibata and way sharper MicroLine (with those two also sporting a way larger major radius), if that's the by far most expensive option. I.e., so far the VM760SLC would rather seem to be the least attractive of the top models in terms of price-performance, unless AT would come up with a yet unknown, but good technical point (like for example a significantly more miniaturised shank).
Oh, and what hasn't been mentioned yet: Seems like AT would want to save a little on the accessories - 'cause the depicted lead wires don't seem to be the usual AT6101 PC-OCC leads anymore... *sigh*
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Yes, I don't get the model positioning vs tip cut either. The larger scanning radius of the SLC would give it the lowest bandwidth of all three LC designs especially on the inner grooves. From reading between the lines in the brochure, they sort of imply that the SLC has the lowest tip mass of the line contact offerings. I wonder if this is why the claimed bandwidth of the 760 extends to 30kHz vs 27kHz. Perhaps the HF tracking ability is better.
For me personally, you would probably have seen me write many times that the Shibata would be my least preferred option (I dislike the complication of the curved scanning line and the effect on IMD if the tip is not in perfect alignment) and the price premium is ridiculous over the ML tip. Given the technical performance and tip life, I would choose the ML over the others all day long. I was interested to note that the AT brochure published the tip dimension of the ML and puts the bearing radius at 56um which is at the lower end of the patent disclosure and noticeably shorter than the JICO SAS which is ostensibly the same design but with a 70 to 80um bearing radius which in theory should have a lower Indentation Factor (to borrow Shure's term!). The SLC tip is the same on the ART7 so I figure that if John's aim is to compare a "Top grade" MM with a similarly "Top grade" MC then the 760 would be a good option.
However, the voicing differences that AT have with their MMs and MCs are what I think spoil the experiment.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
It is interesting that AT have such a disparity in the sonic characteristics of their MM vs. their MC lines isn't it? I have always liked the sound of their MC cartridges, even their least expensive ones. Their MM cartridges have always disappointed me. By contrast, Ortofon has a much more consistent sound signature. At the moment I own a 2M Black, A 2M Mono SE, a Cadenza Black and a recently acquired Winfeld. There is a definite family resemblance and all are quite satisfactory. Unfortunately they get better the higher up the line you go. Your comments about stylus alignment are also right on the money, the simpler ML is also my preference, although if care is taken with setup the Shibata, other than being more difficult to get right, is quite satisfactory. If the stylus is askew too much, though, irrespective of geometry I would rather have a conical. This follows a bias for the KISS Principle.
I think it is quite deliberate that AT have distinct voicings for the MM and MC ranges. All manufacturers know how to achieve flat response with an MM and given the consistent "hump" around 12 KHz irrespective of cartridge inductance, I'm sure that AT have done this very deliberately. The question is why?
Perhaps it is simply to draw a point of difference compared to other manufacturers. For example, Stanton 681 users may be looking for something that sounds "more exciting" with better clarity and so will be drawn to the AT. Certainly for the average user who has a phono stage with a fixed 47k load, the 681 would have a very recessed top end. I load mine at 68k which pulls up the response at 10 to 11kHz to give a ruler flat response. However, in the absence of load adjustment, a "disappointed" 681 user would get an instant "fix" by using an AT instead!
Whereas MC is targeted at the audiophile who is more focussed on neutrality and accuracy thus dictating the cartridge to be engineered to compete with other manufacturers using those metrics.
I don't know...maybe I'm way off!
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
I had to think about this before responding. Your's is a thought provoking post. First of all I don't think you are off base at all. I just hadn't thought about these issues before and certainly not in the same way as you. My phono stage is the very excellent Conrad Johnson TEA2MAX, which is set at 47K ohms. It can be changed, but after messing around with the dip switches for a while, I decided that 47k ohms works well for the majority of the cartridges I have tried. Way back in time I was going back and forth between 681EE and Shure V15-III. Speakers were Bozak Concert Grands and I do recall adding resistance for the 681EE. Preamp back then was an Audio Research SP3. Again you and I seem to be on parallel tracks. Interesting. Yesterday I was listening to Ella and Duke on the Cote D'Azure with my 2M Black and just for the hell of it threw in the AT150ANV mostly prompted by the musings here. Suddenly it sounded like Ella had a cold. I think your observations help explain why.
Thanks,
Bill
Thanks, Anthony:
Who makes these other cartridges you are recommending? I have always liked tapered aluminum cantilevers. Can you provide a URL to any of these cartridges?
Thanks again!
John Elison
Ooops sorry I replied to myself....
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
Hi Dave,All of the ultra-low output cartridges I mentioned have non-permeable material in their coil formers. The coils of the DL-S1 are made from what appears under microscopic inspection to be gold plated copper wire. Anyway, here's what Denon has to say about it.
Happy New Year!
John Elison
.
Edits: 12/29/16
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: