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

Raul,

I re-read my post and can find not one instance where I "put words in your mouth" to use your metaphor here.  LOL!  That is really an impossibility in print anyway, isn’t it?  But I digress.  What I did do is demonstrate to you, using your own example relating to cymbals, that any claim of the use of the word taste should be forbidden is quite ludicrous.  You may wish to exclude the word from your own lexicon because it hinders what you are trying to express.  I understand and respect that.  What I reject, utterly, is your attempt to deny the legitimacy of the word or the right of others to use it.

@rauliruegas You can still buy the damping trough kit for the IV, or at least you could two years ago when I enquired of my contact at SME. But they were £369 each.

Dear @kennyc   : " From what I understand ..."

Can I ask you from where you understand that? I could imagine that from other owners and here if that was how you " understand ": which system link owner own, which kind of phono stages they own?

Because to my understand too the SUT are not a good alternative to any cartridge especially a top rated cartridge as the one you own.

Which are your electronics that are handled your Coralstone?

 

Thank's in advance,

R.

Dear @kennyc 

The best result I have personally heard with a Koetsu and a step-up transformer was with the large Ypsilon SUT (there is also a smaller version at roughly half the price, but to my ears it was noticeably less successful and tended to blur things together). The larger Ypsilon worked exceptionally well.

As for the discussion with @rauliruegas , I don’t really see it as a question of whether a transformer is inherently better or worse than active gain. It depends entirely on the specific system, the budget, and what the owner is trying to optimize.

For example, the solution implemented in the EAR 912, with its internal transformers, remains extremely compelling when you consider price (around €15,000), functionality, and overall musical performance. On the other hand, if you compare it to something like a full CH Precision phono setup, it becomes obvious that the CH operates on another level of refinement. But then again, it also belongs to a completely different price category.

The same applies to step-up transformers. If someone already owns an EAR 88PB, for example, adding a high-quality external transformer such as the larger Ypsilon can be a very substantial upgrade. If the Ypsilon is beyond the budget, even a vintage Fidelity Research XF-1 can provide a surprisingly large improvement for around $1,000.

Now imagine someone already owns an EAR 88PB and wants better sound. Replacing the entire phono stage with another design that uses active gain is not automatically the best answer. You are selling one component, buying another, and there is no guarantee that the result will actually be more enjoyable. I have heard many active-gain phono stages that were perhaps more detailed and articulate, yet had a less natural midrange and were ultimately less engaging musically.

In my experience, the “transformer or no transformer” question cannot be answered in isolation. It has to be evaluated within the context of a particular system.

We had two excellent custom phono stages in our showroom, both with kenotron tube power supplies built by different designers. One used a step-up transformer, the other active gain. Both significantly outperformed the EAR units we had available at the time. If I were forced to make a purely technical argument, I would say that a well-executed active-gain design was more accurate mostly because it eliminates additional interfaces and is less dependent on the quality of the cable between the cartridge and the transformer.

In fact, one of the biggest practical weaknesses of an external SUT is often not the transformer itself but the cable connecting it. If shielding is insufficient, interferance  can become an issue. If the cable is overly damped or heavily constructed, it can negatively affect openness and dynamics. Matching cables to transformers is often a separate project in itself.

At the same time, not all transformers are equally successful. One example from my own experience was the vintage Audio-Technica AT-1000T. On first impression it significantly outperformed the Air Tight transformer we compared it against (what was quite unexpected. Yet on certain records it consistently produced a slight emphasis in the upper frequencies and occasional sibilance. Switching to a different transformer eliminated the issue, suggesting that the transformer itself was responsible rather than cartridge setup or tonearm adjustment.

So yes, a great active-gain phono stage may be the more technically direct solution. But that does not automatically mean it will produce the most satisfying result in every system. Likewise, if someone already owns a very good transformer-based design such as a Ypsilon phono stage, whose internal transformers are excellent, I would not automatically advise selling it simply to move to an active-gain design. There are outstanding active-gain phono stages, but there are also many mediocre ones.

As usual in audio, the answer is not “transformer versus gain.” The answer is choosing the right implementation for the specific system and listener.

One more thought regarding musical taste and the idea of “accurate” reproduction.

At first glance, the concept seems straightforward. If we imagine a live musical performance in front of us, then the ideal audio system should reproduce that performance as closely as possible. This works reasonably well when we talk about classical music, jazz, chamber ensembles, acoustic instruments, or unamplified vocals. We can attend a concert, hear a trumpet, a violin, or a piano, and develop some reference for how those instruments sound in real space.

The situation becomes much more complicated with rock music, progressive rock, and many other genres built around electric instruments.

What is the “natural” sound of an electric guitar?

The answer depends on the guitar itself, the pickups, the amplifier, the speaker cabinet, the microphone used to capture it, the studio processing, and ultimately the artistic decisions made during recording and mixing. The sound of David Gilmour’s guitar is very different from Brian May’s, or Richie Blackmore's. And all three are different again from Stevie Ray Vaughan. None of them represent some single objective reference.

Unlike a violin or a trumpet, an electric guitar is, by its nature, an electronically created sound. When we reproduce it in our listening room, it becomes difficult to define what “accurate” actually means. Accurate compared to which concert? Which amplifier? Which recording session? Which mix? Which mastering?

This is where personal taste inevitably enters the picture.

Over the years I have heard a number of very successful systems that were extraordinary with classical music. They revealed every detail of a violin section, every movement of the bow, every subtle texture of an acoustic performance. For classical music lovers, those qualities can be deeply rewarding.

However, some of those same components became far less convincing when playing Pink Floyd, Queen, or other electric music. The presentation could become overly exposed, and ultimately less enjoyable. One could argue that this is simply greater transparency and therefore greater accuracy. Perhaps. But if the result is that you no longer enjoy listening to the music, the argument becomes somewhat academic.

It is entirely possible to assemble a different system that may present those recordings in a way that is more musically satisfying and emotionally engaging.

This is why I have never viewed my role as helping people build some abstract “perfectly accurate” system. My goal has always been to understand what kind of music a person listens to, what qualities they value, and what emotional response they are looking for from their system.

I have seen listeners who believed that nothing surpassed a Stenheim-based system. I have seen others who felt exactly the same way about Bowers & Wilkins. The systems sounded completely different, with very different balances of bass, midrange, dynamics, and presentation. Yet both owners were delighted with their choices.

For that reason, I do not believe there is a single universally "correct sound" if we're not talking only about classical music. In this genre it sure is.

Once a certain level of performance is reached, the more interesting question becomes not “Which one is objectively right?” but rather “Which one allows this particular listener to connect most deeply with the music they love?”

That, at least, has always been my approach.