MM vs. MC: What Happens When People Jump Into MC Too Early? 


MM vs. MC: What Happens When People Jump Into MC Too Early? 

The decision to purchase an expensive moving-coil cartridge rarely happens immediately. Most music lovers arrive at that point only after spending some time with vinyl.

Perhaps they started with an entry-level MM cartridge, or they already own an affordable MC cartridge. Or perhaps they started with a carefully selected vintage MM cartridge, as I suggested in my article – The Best Vinyl Sound For $1000, and discovered just how much performance can be achieved without spending a fortune.

But after a year or two of listening, reading forums, watching reviews, and talking to other audiophiles, a question inevitably appears:

What am I missing?

What would happen if I installed one of those expensive MC cartridges that audiophiles praise so enthusiastically?

What about Lyra Delos, or some highly praised retipped vintage MC cartridge?

Before we go any further, it is worth mentioning another group of audiophiles—more experienced vinyl enthusiasts—the ones who have already spent several years with analog playback and dream of eventually building a serious turntable with two tonearms, just like the systems they admire on Instagram.

Whenever I asked people planning such systems what tonearms they intended to install, the answer was remarkably consistent:

“One light tonearm and one heavy tonearm.”

In my experience, both approaches lead to expensive detours.

The first mistake is trying to jump into the MC segment before you can afford a solution that really works.

The second is spending a fortune on a two-arm turntable without fully understanding what those tonearms are supposed to accomplish, rather than pursuing a more versatile path.

To explain these mistakes, we need to go back to the beginning.

Cartridges Evolved Together with Records

Phono cartridges did not develop in isolation. They evolved alongside the record itself.

Nobody would seriously consider playing a shellac 78 RPM record with a modern microline MC cartridge. Those records were designed for stylus profiles that, by modern standards, look almost like sewing needles. In many ways, the same principle applies throughout the history of vinyl playback.

As record manufacturing evolved, groove geometry changed. Grooves became narrower, cutting techniques became more sophisticated, and playback equipment became increasingly refined.

Simultaneously, stylus profiles grew more complex. Cantilevers became lighter and stiffer. Magnet structures became more advanced. Cartridge designers continuously searched for new ways to extract more information from the groove.

Many of the moving-coil cartridges that appeared during the 1970s and early 1980s were genuine advances over the moving-magnet designs of their era.

Evaluating those cartridges today, however, is difficult. Unlike vintage MM cartridges, many of which can still be restored to near-original condition simply by installing a modern replacement stylus, a moving-coil cartridge is a much more integrated device. The stylus assembly is not a user-replaceable component but part of the cartridge’s entire mechanical and electromagnetic structure.

As a result, original factory styli for most vintage MC cartridges are long gone.

Restoration typically requires retipping by a specialist, often using a completely different stylus profile, cantilever material, or suspension system than the original design. Sometimes the results are excellent. But what emerges from the process is no longer the same cartridge that left the factory decades ago.

However, cartridge technology did not stop in 1980.

Advances in magnet materials, stylus geometry, coil design, and manufacturing precision have continued for decades. As a result, with only a handful of exceptions, even many of the most celebrated vintage MC cartridges struggle to compete directly with the best modern designs.

What Happens When People Upgrade Too Soon?

What usually happens when people jump into the MC segment with only $1-2K and buy something like Lyra Delos or a similarly priced cartridge?

Some records immediately sound better.

This is especially true of later pressings, where groove geometry became narrower and more sophisticated. Suddenly there is more air, more detail, a deeper soundstage, and a stronger sense of separation between instruments.

The owner smiles and says:

“I knew it. MC really is better.”

Then something else happens.

He pulls out an older record—perhaps Grand Funk Railroad, Nazareth, or Led Zeppelin.

And the reaction becomes less enthusiastic.

The sound is detailed, but somehow less convincing. The music feels more analytical, less cohesive, less emotionally connected. Instead of hearing a performance, the listener begins hearing individual elements of the recording.

Many of the records that define the golden age of vinyl were recorded between the late 1960s and the mid-1980s. Their groove structure and cutting techniques differ substantially from later digitally mastered records, and while the fine stylus of many MC cartridges can extract more information from thin grooves than thicker MM styli, when it comes to the older records with wider grooves – less delicate MM cartridges often produce a more coherent and natural presentation. If you let me use an automobile analogy again, this is like driving a sports car on a highway and a 4x4 off-road.

The Two-Tonearm Solution

This duality brought many music lovers to the two-tonearm solution. Between 2015 and 2018, I built a dozen vinyl systems around exactly this concept. One tonearm carried a cartridge, such as a Shure V15 or an ADC XLM, for earlier records. The second initially carried an Audio-Technica AT33, but its tonal balance was surprisingly similar to the ADC XLM. To make the setup more interesting, I developed my own product, Denon Goliath - a modified Denon 103 that I extensively reworked with retipping and a custom wooden-body conversion. The result deserves a separate article.

It was through the Denon Goliath that I first rediscovered later recordings such as Iron Maiden albums from 1986–1988. For the first time, I heard how much information these records actually contained. Compared to the MM cartridges I had been using previously, it felt as though ten to fifteen percent of the information in the groove had not been retrieved.

These two-tonearm systems were remarkably versatile. They handled both older and newer records with equal confidence and provided an elegant solution to the problem. I used vintage Victor or Denon direct-drive motors and custom plinths to build those turntables, and for that period, they were a perfect audiophile product within a budget below $6000.

And yes – one tonearm on that type of player was light for high-compliance vintage MM cartridges, and the other was heavy for a low-compliance Denon.

Why is it a costly mistake to use the same solution today?

The economics now are very different. Many vintage motors have reached the end of their practical service life and require extensive restoration. A modern turntable capable of accommodating two tonearms, together with the required armboards and tonearms, can easily exceed $15,000–20,000 before you even start thinking about cartridges.

At the same time, today we have My Sonic Lab cartridges that combine very high resolution with a surprisingly natural and balanced presentation across a much wider range of records than was previously possible.

And this is the key point.

Today, buying a versatile My Sonic Lab cartridge and one good tonearm for it is a much smarter decision than a two-tonearm solution. Even the entry-level My Sonic Lab models can compete successfully with combinations that would previously have required two separate tonearms.

As a result, the traditional solution of maintaining separate cartridges for different eras of records becomes much harder to justify when working within a limited budget.

For listeners seeking a turntable capable of reproducing an entire record collection with equal confidence, the most sensible strategy today is often to aim directly for a My Sonic Lab cartridge and a single 12-inch tonearm with low-to-medium effective mass. In my practice, the Moerch DP8 12-inch red dot worked best, but common SME tonearms work perfectly well too, except for heavier models such as the 3012R or M2-12R.

 A Quick Word About Lyra

No discussion of MC cartridges would be complete without mentioning Lyra.

On this website, you will find a separate review of the Lyra Delos, one of the most popular first MC cartridges. In that article, I explain why I rarely recommend it. However, that does not mean it is a bad cartridge. In fact, for many listeners it can be exactly the right choice.

Many entry-level and mid-level high-end systems suffer from a lack of overall transparency. This is often caused not by the cartridge itself, but by the system as a whole. Loudspeakers may have a high Effective Drive Mass, amplifiers may deliver insufficient current, and the entire system may sound slightly closed-in.

In such systems, the energetic and highly detailed character of a cartridge like the Lyra Delos can be extremely beneficial. The cartridge effectively cuts through the system’s overall lack of openness, creating more air, more apparent detail, and a greater sense of excitement.

This is precisely why opinions about Lyra cartridges are often so polarized.

One listener installs a Lyra and immediately falls in love. Another listener hears the same cartridge and finds it overly analytical or fatiguing. Both listeners may be correct. The difference is the system.

So, Should You Upgrade to MC?

My answer is yes, absolutely.

A properly chosen MC cartridge can absolutely deliver a meaningful improvement in analog playback.

The mistake was upgrading without sufficient funds and purchasing an MC cartridge that lacks versatility.

If your system is already highly transparent—sensitive loudspeakers, low Effective Drive Mass, sufficient amplifier current—I would suggest looking toward a cartridge no less than the My Sonic Lab Eminent EX or better, such as the My Sonic Lab Hyper Eminent.

If your system still lacks overall transparency, a cartridge such as the Lyra Kleos may be a good choice, but I recommend addressing the lack of transparency first and then moving to the My Sonic Lab Hyper Eminent anyway.

If your budget for an upgrade is less than $4K, which would allow you to afford Lyra Kleos or a My Sonic Lab Eminent Ex, I would not rush into MC cartridges at all.

Don’t forget that if your phonostage doesn’t properly support MC cartridges, you will need a SUP and a cable to connect, which adds at least $1-2K more.

A properly restored vintage MM cartridge, such as a Shure V15 or an ADC XLM, remains one of the smartest purchases in analog audio below the $4K threshold. More affordable MC cartridges improve certain aspects of reproduction while simultaneously sacrificing others. You gain something on one group of records and lose something on another, and the result is often not a breakthrough, but a compromise.

If your budget allows, skip the intermediate steps and move directly toward a truly versatile design such as the My Sonic Lab.

Does a two-tonarm solution make any sense today?

Oh, yes, but on a much higher level, where lies a very different world of pushing analog playback to the limit. In this game, the goal is no longer versatility.

The goal becomes specialization.

Coming back to the automobile analogy again – BMW X6 is excellent both on a highway and a moderate cross-country, but if you want to set lap records at a racetrack and compete in the Camel Trophy, you need two totally different cars – let’s say a Ferrari and a Defender.

Different cartridges and different tonearms are optimized for different records from different recording eras. This approach can extract the absolute maximum from the medium, but it also requires a completely different level of investment. The threshold begins at roughly $35K, and with the necessary infrastructure – step-up transformers and cabling – it can easily reach $ 45K–$50K. And in this game, the formula “one light-mass tonearm and one heavy tonearm” doesn’t always apply. Some of the best contemporary setups need two heavy tonearms because both cartridges, specialized for records from early and later eras, are low-compliance.

The core of this article is that choosing between MM and MC cartridges is not the real question.

The real question is whether you are optimizing your setup for budget, versatility, or specialization.

At the first level, the goal is straightforward: achieve the best possible sound within a comfortable budget. And vintage MM cartridges like the Shure V15, ADC XLM, and others with Jico styli outperform most existing low-priced MC cartridges, both contemporary and vintage.

The second level begins when the goal of achieving better sound meets a meaningful upgrade that works equally well across a wide range of records. Here's where My Sonic Lab cartridges stand out as one of the most compelling solutions available. If you already know you have no interest in building a $35,000-plus analog front end in the future and that extracting the absolute last few percent of performance from vinyl is not your goal, then a simpler, more universal approach makes perfect sense. In that case, I would focus on turntables that can accommodate a quality 12-inch tonearm but do not necessarily require multiple tonearms.

How Far Down the Rabbit Hole Do You Want to Go?

If, on the other hand, you believe that analog playback may become a long-term passion and that one day you may want to pursue the specialized approach discussed in this article, it may be wise to choose a turntable platform with greater long-term flexibility.

In that scenario, a single universal cartridge such as a My Sonic Lab can serve as an excellent starting point. Later, as priorities and experience evolve, the same turntable can become the foundation for a more specialized two- or even three-tonearm system.

The challenge is that the right answer depends not only on your budget, but also on your goals, your record collection, and how you plan to enjoy music in the years ahead.

If you would like to hear all the cartridges mentioned yourself rather than read about them, I encourage you to visit the REFERENCE VINYL RECORDINGS page.

Reference Vinyl Setup No. 1 in that collection was built around the very concept discussed in this article: a turntable with two specialized tonearms, one optimized for older records and the other for later pressings. Incidentally, that turntable used two heavy-mass tonearms, not the traditional “one light and one heavy” combination.

The Reference Track 1 and Reference Track 2 collections contain recordings made with a wide variety of cartridges, including vintage MC designs and modern cartridges from different price categories.

Well-known and relatively expensive MC cartridges occupy the last two positions. Yet despite their price and brand name, they are outperformed by cartridges ranked much higher—including a humble Shure V15 mounted on a very modest turntable. More importantly, that particular Shure was used in a stock configuration. It did not benefit from many of the upgrades I would normally recommend, such as a top-level JICO stylus with a boron cantilever, a wooden headshell, or mounting it on a 12-inch Moerch. Had that Shure received all those upgrades, it would have been higher in the list, closer to the top 5 positions occupied by the best modern MC carts.

I hope the information in this article—and the accompanying reference recordings—helps you make more informed decisions about your analog front end.

Paul Gerbert, Independent Audio Consultant

Helping audiophiles navigate an expensive and confusing hobby through smarter decisions and long-term planning.

Disclaimer: I don't sell My Sonic Lab cartridges, Lyra cartridges or any other gear mentioned in this article.

colossalsound
Post removed 

Dear @jr1000 

You understood the main point of my article exactly as I intended it.

The article was really about not driving ourselves crazy chasing improvements for the sake of improvements until we have the opportunity to make upgrades that are both substantial and, most importantly, universal. By universal, I mean upgrades that improve the overall listening experience across the collection, rather than creating a situation where one group of records sounds better while another group suddenly makes us miss the presentation we enjoyed on our previous analog setup.

For example, the Denon DL-301, which I mentioned in another article, is actually a very respectable MC cartridge. In terms of resolution, I would agree that it can outperform a Shure, and it costs roughly the same amount of money. The challenge is that stylus replacement is not nearly as straightforward, which immediately raises questions about long-term ownership.

Back when I was using an ADC XLM with JICO replacement styli, a stylus would typically last me a little less than a year. The same was true with replacement styli for Shure cartridges. In my experience, MC styli tend to be somewhat more durable than many aftermarket MM replacements, but they certainly do not last forever.

As I mentioned elsewhere, during my experiments with vintage MC cartridges, there were times when I had to buy two or three examples of the same model before ending up with one truly good specimen. Sometimes you get lucky and find a genuine New Old Stock example, and in certain situations that can be a wonderful solution. But even then, if you listen regularly, a few years later you may find yourself facing the same question again: where do you find another one?

That is really the core of the article.

For that reason, I cannot honestly say that if someone had offered me a choice years ago between my ADC XLM and a Denon DL-301 or Audio Technica ART9, I would necessarily have viewed those MC cartridges as a clear upgrade. And actually, I had not. Some records would have sounded better, certainly. Others, as I mentioned in the article, might have sounded less convincing. The result would have been different rather than universally better.

The only change I would personally describe as a truly significant upgrade at that time was when I eventually moved to an Air Tight PC-3. That days it could be found on the used market for around $2,000. For me, that was an enormous increase in cost compared to what I had been using previously, but I have to admit that the result felt genuinely remarkable.

What impressed me most was that it retained the same natural tonal balance and overall sense of musical credibility that I loved in the ADC, while adding substantially more energy, resolution, and openness. It was the first time I heard a level of air and spatial information from vinyl that I honestly had not thought possible before.

The purpose of the article was simply to suggest that some steps are worth postponing until they can deliver a genuinely meaningful and well-rounded improvement.

At the same time, none of this is meant to discourage people who enjoy experimenting. If someone has the means and the curiosity to try different cartridges on different tonearms, compare approaches, and expand their experience, that is a perfectly valid and enjoyable part of the hobby. Those listeners are pursuing a different goal, and my recommendations are not really aimed at them.

Regarding your questions about finding a good Shure, unfortunately there is always some element of luck involved. When I was buying vintage Shure cartridges, I occasionally received units with an open coil and a dead channel. It happens. On the other hand, these cartridges are usually not prohibitively expensive, so the risk is manageable. In my experience, if the cartridge is in good cosmetic condition, the odds are generally in your favor.

As for replacement styli, the best approach is simply to look through the current JICO catalog. They now offer a surprisingly large number of options, and each stylus is clearly listed for the specific cartridge models it supports. To give a truly definitive answer, one would need to be more of a Shure specialist than I am. I have worked with several Shure models and purchased replacement styli for them over the years, but it has been quite some time.

What I can say is that the selection appears to have expanded significantly since then. There are now some very interesting options available, including boron cantilevers, wooden cantilevers, and, if I remember correctly, even ruby cantilever versions. For anyone interested in exploring the platform further, those options are certainly worth investigating.

Dear @neonknight 

I actually agree that if my article is interpreted the way you interpreted it, it would sound like pure elitism.

The problem is that I was trying to answer a somewhat different question.

My articles are generally written for people whose primary goal is not to explore every possible cartridge, tonearm, or phono stage, but rather to reach a satisfying result with the fewest expensive mistakes along the way.

That distinction is important because the advice I would give to someone who enjoys experimentation is often very different from the advice I would give to someone who simply wants to build a system and enjoy records.

Starting with your last point, I have learned over the years is that system transparency is not determined by price. It is determined by the overall balance of the system. A relatively affordable system built around something like Revival Audio Atalante 5 speakers and a good 300B integrated amplifier can be remarkably revealing. Conversely, a significantly more expensive system may be less transparent in the areas that matter for cartridge selection.

That is why I have always felt that cartridges should be evaluated as part of a complete system rather than as isolated products. A cartridge that sounds wonderful in one setup may be completely unconvincing in another.

I am certainly not insisting that everyone needs multiple tonearms. In fact, the opposite is true. My recommendation for most people is a single, well-balanced, reasonably universal setup.

Multiple tonearms begin to make more sense when someone is pursuing the last degree of optimization and wants to tailor different cartridges to different parts of a collection. At that point we are no longer talking about the most efficient path to good sound. We are talking about specialization and maximizing results, which is a different goal entirely.

As for MM versus MC, I think context matters more than the cartridge category itself. If the collection consists primarily of newer recordings and modern pressings, there are certainly situations where an MC cartridge may be the better choice even at a moderate budget.

However, if we are talking about the classic records that make up a large portion of many collections—1970s and 1980s rock, jazz, and similar material—I personally still find that some vintage MM cartridges with good replacement styli deliver an exceptionally coherent and natural presentation.

That does not mean they outperform every MC cartridge. It simply means that I do not hear models such as the Denon DL-301, various Audio-Technica designs, or cartridges like the Sumiko Songbird as universally superior to a good Shure or ADC in the way discussions sometimes suggest.

Some records improve. Some records do not. The result is often different rather than unquestionably better.

My concern is that people often spend money in small steps, chasing incremental improvements, only to discover later that they have spent considerably more than they originally intended. They buy one cartridge, then another, then a different phono stage, then a step-up transformer, then perhaps a different tonearm, and so on. For someone who enjoys experimentation, that journey can be fascinating and rewarding. For someone whose goal is simply to arrive at a great result, it may not be the most efficient path.

That is why my usual recommendation for newcomers is to start with a strong vintage MM platform. In my experience it provides a very solid reference point, works well across a wide range of records, and helps people learn what they actually value in analog playback before making larger investments.

Then, if and when they move to MC, they can do so at a level where the improvement is substantial enough that they are gaining something without giving up the qualities they enjoyed before.

Ultimately, I don’t think we’re disagreeing as much as it may seem. We simply place the emphasis in different places. Your perspective is very valuable for someone who wants to explore the hobby. My articles are generally written for people who are trying to navigate it with the fewest costly detours.

In fact, this discussion has convinced me that I should probably write a separate article addressing the question more directly:

“How Much Do You Really Need to Spend for Great Vinyl Sound?”

Dear @jooky10000 

I think you have run into exactly the situation I was describing in the article.

One of the more frustrating realities of analog playback is that not every upgrade turns out to be an upgrade in the way we expect. Sometimes we gain certain qualities, only to discover that we have lost something else that was quietly contributing to our enjoyment all along.

Looking at the system you originally described, it is actually not surprising to me that it left such a strong impression.

The Kenwood KD-600 was a very capable direct-drive platform. The Infinity Black Widow remains one of the most interesting low-mass tonearms ever produced, and the Grace F9 family is, in my opinion, one of the truly exceptional MM cartridge designs.

That means your starting point was already unusually good. When that is the case, achieving a genuine upgrade becomes much more difficult than many people assume.

In fact, one of the reasons I wrote the article was precisely because systems like yours demonstrate that price and progress do not always move in a straight line together.

Had you installed something like a My Sonic or Air Tight cartridge on the original Kenwood platform (Black Widow would've been too light, though), there is a reasonable chance that you might have achieved a more meaningful improvement than by replacing the entire front end at once. Not because the newer components are inferior, but because the original combination already possessed a very coherent musical balance.

As for the SME, you can certainly consider me biased here. I have enormous respect for SME tonearms and have used them in many systems over the years. Their tonearms earned their reputation for good reason. My feelings about the turntables themselves, however, have always been more mixed. Many listeners love them, and clearly a great number of experienced audiophiles have built wonderful systems around them. But for my personal taste, SME turntables often prioritize refinement, control, and composure over energy and immediacy.

As a result, when someone comes from a lively direct-drive design, the presentation can sometimes feel a little restrained, even if many traditional measures of performance have improved.

That does not make the SME objectively wrong. It simply means that certain listeners may miss some of the drive, momentum, and sense of excitement they previously enjoyed.

The Koetsu introduces another layer of complexity. These cartridges are wonderful, but I have never considered them universal ones. To me they are more like a special-purpose sports car than an everyday vehicle. In the right system and with the right records they can be magical. But they also have a very distinct personality.

For that reason, I find it difficult to recommend a Koetsu as the single reference cartridge for an entire collection.

Yesrerday, I wrote an article about the Suzaku Top Wing cartridge while setting one up for a client, and the opening section discusses the broader Koetsu family and the qualities that make these cartridges both so attractive and so polarizing. I will link that article below because it explains my perspective much better than I can in a forum reply.

https://colossalsound.pro/stati/the-top-wing-suzaku-the-closest-thing-to-a-koetsu-without-actually-being-one.html

Ultimately, though, the most important thing is this:

The qualities you remember from the Kenwood, Black Widow, and Grace combination are not imaginary. There are very specific technical reasons why that system could sound so engaging.

And that is exactly why I am working on a follow-up article about how to achieve genuinely excellent vinyl playback without spending unnecessary amounts of money. In many ways, your experience is a perfect illustration of why I decided to write it.

“How Much Do You Really Need to Spend for Great Vinyl Sound?” - coming soon