P. I know you like to show your stupidity but please not so often ! ! !
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.
- ...
- 171 posts total
To be honest, I am gradually losing interest in these exchanges because you keep turning a simple statement into an extreme theoretical scenario and then criticizing a position that exists only in your own theoretical example. Your latest example is exactly that. The idea that every cartridge requires its own dedicated transformer is your theoretical construct, not something I actually said. In practice, most transformers are designed around general cartridge categories: low-output, medium-output, or higher-output designs. Within those categories they work very well with a wide range of cartridges. As I mentioned before, some manufacturers, such as Ypsilon, ask which cartridge will be used and make small optimizations around that particular model. However, if you compare a standard transformer intended for that output range with one optimized for a specific cartridge, the difference is usually very subtle. Most listeners would struggle to identify it consistently. The same applies to phono stages. A recent example - we ordered a Boulder phono stage for a client. Boulder asked which cartridge would be used and offered to optimize one of the three inputs for that cartridge. The cartridge happened to be a Lyra Atlas. The unit arrived with two standard inputs and one input optimized for the Atlas. After comparing them, the difference between the optimized input and the standard inputs was extremely small. Perhaps measurable. Perhaps audible under ideal conditions. But certainly not the kind of difference that separates “music” from “not music.” The same applies to the phono stage designer who builds units for our company. Yes, he asks which cartridge will be used and optimizes the design accordingly. But in practice these phono stages are still built around broad cartridge categories: low-output, medium-output, and high-output cartridges. If a client later decides to replace one low-output cartridge with another low-output cartridge from a different manufacturer, there is usually no practical problem at all. To justify rebuilding the unit for such a change, one would have to be chasing extremely small differences. A bigger change would be moving from a low-output cartridge to a high-output design, but actually that never happened in our experience. Clients who commission custom phono stages are not constantly changing cartridges. They would never buy Vertex/Hana/Air Tight at once. Usually they live with 1 cartridge for years and typically choose something like a Lyra Kleos, a My Sonic Lab Eminent or a middle-tier Clearaudio. And if they decide to upgrade, they usually move higher within the same family. Someone who likes the Lyra sound is more likely to move from a Kleos to an Etna or Atlas than to suddenly abandon the entire design philosophy and switch to a completely different cartridge type. Even if such a change does occur, there is no real problem. We provide technical support, and modifying the unit is neither difficult nor particularly time-consuming. Plus the unit has the MM input and the possibility of using an external transformer. So again, I understand the theoretical argument. What I do not see is the practical problem. In all the years we have been doing this, I honestly cannot remember a single case where a client’s listening experience was meaningfully limited because a phono stage was originally optimized around some particular cartridge rather than another. This is exactly my point. Optimization exists. Fine tuning exists. But turning that into a claim that every cartridge requires an entirely different transformer or phono stage is taking the idea to an extreme that has very little to do with real-world listening. As for owning multiple transformers, I do not see any problem there. At one point I had Koetsu, Air Tight, and a vintage Fidelity Research cartridge mounted on my turntable. I used one Ypsilon transformer for Koetsu and Fidelity Research, and another transformer for the Air Tight. Were Koetsu and Fidelity Research perfectly identical electrically? Actually I didn't measure ) - knowing that they are both low output was enough. Could there have been some theoretical advantage in having a separate transformer for each cartridge or even optimising them? Perhaps. Did I hear any meaningful problem using the same Ypsilon transformer with both Koetsu and FR? Not at all. Both performed with the same transformer at an extremely high level. This is why I believe much of this discussion has drifted away from practical listening experience and into theoretical extremes that sound dramatic on paper but have very little relevance in actual systems. |
@colossalsound My experience on the Gon over the past 8 years has introduced me to being a witness to this type of exchange you are experiencing on quite a few occasions. The exchange is repetitive in all ways, even if only noticeable for difference, by the quantity of !!!! - ???? - CAPs - BOLD - Links and inaccurate accusations of one showing a Dunning–Kruger effect trait in their person. Across 8 years I have gathered enough info to strongly suggest, when a particular individual joins a Thread, there content is not considered by the main proportion of Posters within the Thread. I also strongly believe that the PM communication I have been very happy to receive from forum members is as a result of them wanting to avoid the type of treatment you are receiving within this thread, especially when solely sharing about experiences had. |
It is clear at this point that @jasonbourne71 said all that needed to be said right at the outset with respect to the OP. The man is a charlatan. |
I’ve heard several Ypsilon SUT in great systems / rooms hosted by thoughtful , erudite and discerning hosts… while I would welcome that level of performance in a Mani…. Keep on smoking… and yes of course they have a place n time… pairs well on a Basis 1400 > RB300 with silver wire and a Nag MP-110… but in my somewhat humble opinion the Toolshed 300B amp makes the frosting….. lighten up people |
- 171 posts total

