What is the preferred cartrige mm or mc and why

Williewonka, thanks great link and down to earth read. This is what the OP is about, thanks for sharing. Share and learn

Watch Peter Lederman’s of SOUNDSMITH lecture:
https://youtu.be/F65mODzn4Gk ... to find out why MC must be avoided and why the MI is better according to his opinion. SoundSmith refurbished/retipped many thousands MC cartridges.

Technics MM cartridges with the world’s smallest effective moving mass (0.098mg) and flat frequency response from 5Hz to 100kHz can not be ignored by those people who claims about high moving mass of the MM system.

Then remember Mr. Walter O. Stanton and his extremely low output MM cartrisges (for example). Walter Stanton believed to his dying day that NO moving coil cartridge could ever be any good. Unlike ordinary high impedance cartridges, the Stanton 980 LZS is insensitive to capacitive loading. The Frequency response of the 980 LZS extends to beyond 50kHz in order to assure flawless reproduction of all overtones and signal harmonics which exist and are captured and recorded on modern discs. Although those frequencies cannot be heard directly, their interaction with other frequencies creates subharmonics which are in the audible range. Also any transducer capable of reproducing such high frequencies perform admirably within the audible rangeresponding without hesitation to any transient so vitally important in true recreation of original sound.

"Aficionados of moving-coil (MC) cartridges will be surprices and pleased to learm that 980LZS is indistinguishable from the very best moving-coil (MC) types in the most rigorous laboratory and aural tests. Stanton’s is an impressive dual archivement. I was continually aware that 980LZS sounded like a moving-coil (MC) cartridge. The bass was well defined and tight with good sonic clarity, as well as transient response and applause definition. Transparency of sound was excellent when reproducing the high recorded levels present on most direct-to-disc recordings. At no time did i notice any coloration of the music. The 980LZS is also, one of the very few phono cartridges that can cleanly reproduce the cannon fire on the Telarc DG-10041 recording of Tchaikovsky’s 1812." - B.V.Pisha (Audio Review, Feb.1982)



And finally these statement from TAS MAG:
http://www.regonaudio.com/Stanton881AudioTechnicaATML70.html

As ASP pointed out in TAS (Issue 70), the audiophile consumer and dealer community is massively arrayed against MOVING MAGNETS cartridges. But experimentation is interesting, and in this case inexpensive. If your audiophile friends give you a hard time, you’ll certainly have a pat answer: you can say if it’s good enough for Kavi Alexander, Jim Boyk, and Doug Sax, it’s good enough for me. The AT-ML170 has tip resonance at 40 kHz, and hence response that extends to that frequency at least. Flanders again: "The ear can’t hear as high as that. Still, it ought to please any passing bat." Seriously, though, such ultra-extension does seem to be associated to exceptional top end clarity.
Everyone is entitled to personal tastes, but truth is truth. If you want to hear something like the truth, I still say-no matter what everyone else is using-that you should buy a flat-top cartridge like the AT-ML170 and avoid all MC cartridges with a rising top-end. If the sound of live music is your goal, why would you want to hear sound which is not only untrue to its source but also is something you are "seldom conscious of live".

The contrast between these views of moving magnet cartridges and usual audiophile opinion is striking. On the one hand, we have assurances of these leaders of the High-End recording industry that the best MOVING MAGNETS are very close to the master tape (or live mike feed, for direct to disc) and that they are capable of "uncanny" resolution. On the other hand, we have the prevailing perception, amounting almost to a shibboleth, of the High-End listening community, that only MOVIN COILS are realistic in some sense of that word and that moving magnets are incapable of sonic truth.

Dear @gillatgh: In one word: IGNORANCE, each one of us ignorance audio/MUSIC levels. Tonearms has nothing to says about preferences.

Several years ago I re-discovered for my self the MM/MI alternative and was really exited and enthusiast about for years till I learned from those great MM/MI experiences.

One important thing that I learned is that the MM/MI alternative was diminished for years with out any true and real facts. This alternative is a really one but different from the LOMC alternative and certainly can't competes " face to face " with the best at the top LOMC cartridges ( vintage or today ones. ).

The @chakster you tube link comes from a 100% biased gentleman that is a manufacturer o non-LOMC cartridges and he makes money for that. Nothing wrong with that but he is not an unbiased audiophile. So his opinion is just one of the " pile ".

The same @chakster post about the Stanton can tell only one side of the whole Stanton design because I own both 981 models the the LZ and HZ that are even better ( both = than the 980 because the 981 are hand calibrated and in my experiences with the HZ has better quality performance levels than the LZ and obviously can play cleanly the 1812.

In the other side, the TAS link where  recording engineers preference for MM magnet in reality says per se nothing more than that were their preferences but all those engeneers are biased for what they likes and not which is better and all those engeneers gave their opinions based on the system equipment where they listened their recordings that  can't says MM/MI are superior to the LOMC cartridge alternative that's as a fact is clearly superior one.

@chakster is an enthusiast MM/MI " roockie " with a really long road to walk and learns why and where comes the LOMC superiority. He is wrong but he does not yet knows he is wrong and why is wrong.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Trust your ears.  I do.

After buying 2nd to the top line Conrad Johnson electronics and a Pass Labs phonostage, I thought I was good to go with my Rega RP6 with the Exact2 cartridge.  Every time I put on an album (after cleaning it on my Clearaudio Smartmatrix Pro), I was really, really sad.  Why?  Because it sounded like crap, that's why.  Compressed soundstage, lack of definition, and no finesse.  No particular bass presence, either.

Before deciding to get out of vinyl, I ponied up for a Rega RP10 with the Apheta2 MC cartridge.  Now?  All I buy is vinyl.

I know the really high end guys poke fun at the Apheta's (both 1 and 2), but it sounds good to my ears.  Fremer was right; classical sounds the best, but rock & roll is serviceable, and way, way better than on the RP6 with the MM cartridge.

My next stop is to try a Grado because I love the house sound of the headphones and had Grado cartridges growing up, or go with a Hana SL and see if i saves my RP6.

Happy listening.

I don’t have enough experience to say definitely -- and I doubt that you could make a single generalized rule about MM vs MC; I suspect there are really great ones of each type.

That said, conventional wisdom is that MC is better because of the lower mass of the moving coil vs moving magnet. But then there’s the additional cost of SUT or phono stage (unless your system already has a MC input).

My own experience is limited; I moved to a Dynavector 10x5 HOMC in the last few years, and love it, compared to the MM Rega Elys I had before.

Gasbose

@bsme85 , your comment was entirely unhelpful and not very courteous.