Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
Do the moving magnet cartridges have a flat response while the moving coils have a high end peak or do the moving coils have the flat response while the moving magnet models have a high end rolloff? The frequency response graphs and square wave response photos tell the story. The answer is the first case. And the reason is very simple. When you think about it, the principle of converting a mechanical vibration into an electrical signal is the same for both designs, the magnetic lines of force of a permanent magnet breaking a coil of wire therby generating a voltage. The only difference is that in the moving magnet design, the magnet moves relative to a fixed coil while in the moving coil design, the coil moves relative to a fixed magnet. Which variant is better? The one with the lower dynamic mass. And that is clearly the moving magnet. While extremely small magnets can be very powerful for their intended function, the mass of a coil of copper wire is restricted by the gage of the copper and the number of turns of wire required as well as the spool. Also the compliance of the lead wires becomes a factor. The high mass results not only in substantially more inertia but in lower compliance styli assemblies and greater resonances. Also fewer turns of copper means lower voltage output necessating more electronic amplification.

However, whichever you choose, you can change the frequency response of the output using an equalizer or tone controls. Don't like the idea of equalization? Then consider this. Moving magnet or moving coil, the first thing that happens to the signal from the cartridge in the preamp is that it is equalized. Why? Ever hear of the RIAA curve? Do you know how microgroove long playing records are made? On recording the high frequency response of the tape is boosted so that the signal overcomes the surface background noise on the disc and the bass is cut so that it doesn't overmodulate the recording beyond the cartridge's ability to track it and to conserve space to make a long playing record possible. Upon playback, this frequency response equalization must be corrected for by processing it through an inverse equalizer. So you get equalization whether you like it or not. What cannot be compensated for is the high dynamic mass requiring greater tracking force to keep the record in the groove and make it follow the wiggles. Therefore, as a bonus for buying a MC cartridge, you get greater record and stylus wear on each playing and as a further added bonus, most MC cartridges have to go back to the factory for stylus replacement which is far more labor intensive than the three seconds it takes to slide one stylus out and another in for a MM cartridge.
Please share with us any and all frequency response graphs you have on MC and MM cartridges. When's the last time you saw one? Many, many years ago - back when MC's had high end peaks? Granted, some still do and others can based on measurable parameters with other pieces of gear in the chain. But the problem you're citing is largely theoretical these days, along with most of the other problems associated with vinyl playback. Oh, and I have no problem with equalization. I simply prefer to get my system as transparent and neutral as possible first.

No question MM cartridges have some advantages - higher output, ease of stylus change. Sound is a disadvantage IMHO. There is less realism, less resolution, less detail. If being able to replace the stylus yourself is worth this, then by all means go for it. And record wear? Hmmm... I suppose records still wear out, but I haven't had that happen in many years. In fact, I still regularly play LP's from the 1950's. More record CARE = less record WEAR. And no one is dissing your Shure cartridge - at least no one who's ever spent any time with it. It's a world beater for $325. But it is NOT, and I repeat NOT the state of the art in cartridges - far from it. But there are other MM cartridges that are twice as expensive that aren't as good. There are even some MC's that bow to the Shure. But compared to a more expensive MC, the Shure comes up short. You disagree and that is your right. But don't cite some graphs and a bunch of theory and tell those of us who have heard better that MM's are the best cartridges - that ol' dog is too old and weak to hunt. We've heard the measurement schtick with digital, amps, preamps, tubes vs solid state and on and on ad nauseum. I prefer to listen, thanks.

Now, since arguing MC's vs MM's is hardly worthy of your talents, gimme an opinion that is. Do you prefer the Perlman or the Mintz reading of Paganini's Caprices? I have several different copies of these pieces by several different violinists and while I have picked these two as the two best, I can't decide which is better, if either. Little help? Which is your favorite, and why? I'd really like to know and talking music is WAY more interesting than talking gear, no?