1. Home
  2. analog
  3. 198597-224397

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
rauliruegas
13,337 posts
 

@colossalsound   " 

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  "

 

Who told you that? because is totally false: a TT has or should not has a sound color by it self. Period.

Do you know what you are missing through the 20.2? you miss ( as jooky ) the developed higher distortions that are accustom too. Tha's all. Got it?

In the other side how are you helping jooking ? he already own and invest high money in the 20-2,V and Urushi and you did not post anything to help him aas a facyt no onde do it abouttttt in this thread.

I posted him that if he wants that his listening sessions shines and enjoy it as never before then that he share which room/system items he own and after those several of us ( including you ) really can hep to achieve that target.

Some of us are still waiting for the jooky critical information. 

Now is all up to him.

 

R.

colossalsound's avatar
colossalsound OP
38 posts
 

Dear @rauliruegas 

With all due respect to your considerable experience, I can’t agree with the idea that a turntable does not contribute its own sonic character. Perhaps, in theory, it shouldn’t. In practice, however, my experience has been exactly the opposite.

Over the years I’ve become convinced that virtually everything in the analog playback chain matters to some degree: the materials used in the turntable itself, the bearing design, the platter, the suspension, and even the surface on which the turntable is placed.

The latter was actually one of the biggest surprises of my audio journey.  Several years ago, a person with considerably more experience than I had at the time started explaining to me why different turntable platforms sounded different. I literally laughed at the idea. My reasoning was simple: beneath the record there is a mat, beneath the mat a platter, beneath the platter a plinth, beneath the plinth feet, often with some form of isolation. How could it possibly matter whether the turntable sits on wood, glass, or stone?

He simply smiled and said, “Try it.”

Since I was always willing to experiment, I did exactly that with my Victor TT-101 which I had at that period of time. The result genuinely shocked me. The difference was obvious enough that I even recorded the comparison in DSD. I still have those recordings and may share them in the thread simply out of curiosity.

Once that experience happened, I became much more cautious about declaring that certain things “cannot possibly matter.”

The same applies to turntable design itself.

For example, when comparing something like an Acoustic Signature design with a TechDAS Air Force Premium III while keeping everything else identical — same arm, same cartridge, same phono cable, same phono stage — I consistently hear differences that go beyond what I would call simple improvements or degradations.

The Premium III has outstanding dynamics, which is not surprising given the extremely low friction of the air bearing. Yet at the same time I perceive a slight reduction in lower-midrange body, somewhere around the 300-400 Hz region. The presentation becomes faster and more dynamic, but also slightly leaner, as though some of the physical weight of instruments has been reduced.

At first glance this seems difficult to explain. Yet I have heard similar tendencies from several other air-bearing designs. If we accept that even support structures can influence the final result, the phenomenon becomes less mysterious.

My own working theory is that the air-bearing system partially decouples the platter from the mass beneath it. In the larger Air Force models, particularly those using titanium platters, much of that body returns because the platter itself contributes significant mass and energy storage. Whether that explanation is entirely correct is open to debate, but the listening results have been consistent enough for me to take them seriously.

I fully understand that these observations may sound unconvincing to someone who has not had the same opportunities to perform these comparisons. I also have no strong desire to persuade anyone. I simply know what repeated experiments have shown me over many years, not only in my own systems but also in systems belonging to clients whom we were helping. Importantly, all those recommendations were usually intended to save people money rather than encourage additional purchases.

As a result, I have come to believe that turntables absolutely do influence tonal and dynamic character. Not as dramatically as cartridges. Not as dramatically as phono stages. But certainly enough to matter.

Which brings as to the SME.

My reccomendation to @jooky10000  will be absolutey different then yours, which doesn’t mean that I’m right or you’re wrong or vise versa. In my experience, the combination of relatively low platter mass, the rubber suspension system, and the broad belt contact area results in a presentation that consistently sounds less dynamic and less alive than competing designs such as Acoustic Signature, Transrotor, TW Acoustic, Verdier or actually any model that uses the same construction as Mircro Seiki RX5000 or similar. And incidentally, all the turntables mentioned above (if given a similar model position) will exhibit slightly different sonic character even when paired with the same tonearm, cartridge, and phono stage. 

Every time I have compared SME turntables against alternatives such as mentioned above , I have come away with the same impression: the SME sounds comparatively restrained, polite, and dynamically subdued. For some peope it may be the exact type of sound they are looking for. But if you want a more vivid and dynamic perfformance, it is easier to change the turntable then to fix it (in my opinion the SME sound character is not fixable at all - it is just its character and you either like it or not). 

The same principle applies to the Koetsu. Whether it is the right cartridge depends heavily on the music being played. For vocal recordings, acoustic music, and many later recordings, a Koetsu can be wonderful. For classic rock of 70s-80s, however, I have never found it convincing. In that context something like an Air Tight sounds significantly more natural, energetic, and believable to me. No amount of system balancing fully changes that fundamental character.

This is where I think our approaches differ. You are looking at ways to optimize the existing system and improve it through careful adjustments in the chain. I tend to look at the original component choices themselves and ask whether the problem is being created there. In other words, I sometimes see people trying to compensate for one compromise by introducing another compromise somewhere else in the chain.

That doesn’t mean my approach is correct and yours is wrong. It simply means we are solving the same problem from different directions.

And honestly, I think there is room for both viewpoints.

We can offer two different paths and let him decide which one makes more sense to him. I certainly don’t believe my opinion should outweigh anyone else’s on the forum. My role is simply to say what I genuinely think and allow the reader to make up his own mind.

But first I need to know what kind of music @jooky10000 listens.

 

jooky10000
2 posts
 

@rauliruegas ​​​​@colossalsound 

Thank you both for your thoughtful insight into this topic and how it applies to my system. I think you both have valid and interesting points, all of which I have been considering since changing to the SME/Koetsu setup. 
As for my system I am running a McIntosh MA8900 with the MC Phono preamp which I have varied output between 60 to 100Ohms with unclear results. I have B&W 804 Nautilus and B&W ASW 800 Nautilus Sub. I listen to all types of music on vinyl primarily Jazz, Classic Rock, Folk, Soul, and a mixture of clean vintage pressings and high end audiophile pressings. 
I have been debating whether the McIntosh built in phono preamp just isn’t enough for the Koetsu and that’s what’s missing… considering a Parasound, Audio Research or other, but again trying to make the most of what I have for now. Also not sure if it’s the SME/Koetsu type sound that just isn’t exactly what I’m looking for. 
 

thanks for all your comments and insights. 

lewm
14,657 posts
 

Neon, 9mV from an MC cartridge!!! I would imagine the moving mass to have been quite high.

pindac's avatar
pindac
3,859 posts
 

@colossalsound I like you have been able to be part of comparisons for designs for the same turntable model, where a same support structure / Tonearm /cartridge are used for the evaluations being carried out.

On both an ID TT model and DD TT model, changes have been made to materials in the Bearing Housing Assembly and the Plinth Material. Including the structure selected for the same type of Plinth base material.

As a subjective evaluation of the end sound being produced, it has been easy to detect discernible differences being created, where some changes detected are notable for the improvement on offer. 

Today's owned TT's are with changes to the Bearing Assembly, and a particular material is selected to take on the role of the Plinth, or the design change to have a  Plinth/Chassis as an amalgamation.  

More to discover