HO MC line contact: DV, Benz or stick to MM

Have been pondering a 2M Black for some time - but curiosity says that once you get to that sort of cost (400 +) is it time to look towards MC.

Phono stage is that onboard a current Croft pre (ie MM), so needs to be high output - that said, the 25 has what some consider a little too much gain in the first place.

Also needs to be fine-line or similar, current cart is a Goldring 1042, before that a 1040 and I seem to get on with that type of profile.

It's to hang off a Mørch on a Spacedeck and the most likely candidates look to be a Benz Ace or Dynavector DV20 X2.

What do you lot think then?

 

I think that MMs have certain intrinsic limitations due to the type of generator. Essentially the generator has high inductance and the tuned circuit formed with the load being driven (cables and input) will naturally limit HF extension and usually puts in a peak at the top end, which even when suppressed remains audible.

I don't know the 2M Black but given its a costly Ortofon MM I don't doubt it will sound excellent, but my hunch is that something like an AT33PTG would easily outperform it.
It will need a SUT for use with the Croft but you needn't spend as fortune. Look for a used AT630 or even buy a pair of Sowter transformers and pop them in a small metal box for around £100.

 

So the answer to the question: high output MC or MM is actually - neither!




but if you must then probably MM

 

Its hard to listen first unfortunatley. I had a dyna2O, HO and L to listen to at the same time a while back, and have to say that the L really does show the HO a clean pair of heels in all areas. I would suggest tha a well selected low output and sut would be a much more satisfying way of spending your money.

 

Thanks for that.

As ever, things move on and the way things have landed at the moment is that I now have a 2M Bronze mounted.

The Goldring was fine on the Mørch until it came to things like big soprano passages when it all got rather congested and unpleasant.

Folk who don't like the 1042 often site a harsh top-end as a weakness but it's not something I ever had an issue with on either a Hadcock or an RB250 before that.

The 2M Bronze is much better in this respect - though not perfect as yet - and I have been trying to figure out why.

The obvious things are that the Bronze is both heavier and higher compliance than the 1042, whilst the Mørch at a mass of 8g is lighter than both the RB250 and Hadcock at around 12g.

So, with Rob's original post regarding the top-end limitations of MM in mind, I start to think about the MC situation again.

But - wouldn't an MC cart almost certainly be lower compliance than either the Goldring or Ortofon and if that is where the problem lies it's not going to go away is it?

Other things to try are damping fluid in the Mørch - which I need to order - or possibly a bit more weight.

 

Compliance isn't quite the problem it was many years ago.

Back in the day, on the one hand manufacturers were chasing better tracking ability and lighter playing weights at the same time. This drove up compliance to sill levels and compromised the structural integrity of many cartridges as they tried to reduce mass.

On the other hand you had the high end MC market lead by the likes of Supex, Ortofon and Koetsu producing high mass. low compliance models.

Today many models fall neatly into the medium compliance and medium mass range and this cuts across the MM/MC range.

For example, the majority of Denon, AT, Ortofon (not vintage) and Dynavector models are medium compliance.

I would seriously consider the AT33PTG/2 which will work fine in your arm and is extremely capable in all areas. Superb clean tracking and no problem on hot tracks. The cost difference over the top MMs is pretty small.
Have a chat with Tony over at pfm. He wasn't a fan of AT cartridges in the past finding them too toppy but has been using and enjoying the 33 for a few years now. As you know he runs a record shop so his AT sees an awful lot of vinyl!
Another consideration is the tip. The AT uses a micro line profile which ensures that sound quality is maintained as the tip wears since the diamond retains the important aspects of the profile - the important part that makes contact with the placing surface. This is unique to the ML/MR profile and means they perform consistently with long life.

 

So what factors do affect the ability of a current cart to track better in one arm than another?

 

That gets complicated as depending on your precise meaning of 'tracking' different aspects of design will come into play, but you can isolate the main factors:

- VTF
- Compliance
- Hinge damping
- Tip mass
- Stylus profile
- Arm and cartridge body integrity

Low and middle frequencies are influenced primarily by the first three, since those frequencies cause the greatest cantilever movement (displacement). As you lower compliance so you need to increase VTF to maintain the same tracking ability. Remember some of the Shure and Goldring MMs form the 70s and 80s which would track at <1g. All had crazy high compliance meaning only one or two arms actually worked well, and even those had too much mass. Here we are talking about what is commonly heard as mistracking, so break-up on strong vocals. muddle during loud complex passages and 'spit'.

At high frequencies, tip profile and moving mass dominate. The scanning face of the diamond needs to be sufficiently narrow in profile to accurately follow high frequencies. Cartridges commonly have THD >10% (yes really!) above 10khz primarily due to tracing distortion, which is just another term for high frequency tracking ability.
The partial cure is a diamond profile with a small minor radius so that it can better trace at those frequencies. This usually means VDH, Micro Ridge, and some other line contact types. But beware - a 'fat' line is a fat lot of use, and many are. You want a minor radius of <5um and preferably between 2.5-4.0 for clean HF tracing. Very few elliptical profiles offer this (8um is common) but VDH, Gyger S and MR are all safe bets.
The other factor at the top end is moving mass which should be as low as possible. That's why you'll see bush mounted stones and thick cantilevers on cheap cartridges and much smaller tips, mounted without bushing onto fine cantilevers as you spend more, generally.

Affecting everything is what the cartridge body and arm does with the considerable amount of energy passing through it. Given the high variety of possible arm and cartridge combinations this remains firmly in the realm of suck it and see. For example I've heard low compliance MCs track cleanly in a rigid arm such as a modern SME V or Rega, while sounding diffuse and blurred in arms of less substantial construction, yet the latter might perform perfectly will with a different cartridge.

Sorry but I seem to be introducing more questions and variables, so my advice stands to buy a 33PTG/2 which has a fine tip, super fine cantilever, flat response, low distortion, medium compliance, medium VTF requirement, is very well built and will work very well in a wide range of arms

 

Thanks for taking the time on the response Rob.

Just to pick up on a few points:

I have Goldring 1040 and 1042, so VDH and Gyger S respectively, the Ortofon is a nude fine line with a tip radius given as "r/R 8/40 µm" don't quite understand that but it sounds like the Goldrings are finer?

On the energy into the cart/arm thing: one view I have heard put forward is that, by their nature, unipivots are less able to deal with this than more substantial arms. Given my experience of two unis (albeit with very different pivot set-ups) is this one of those generalisations that is just far too general, in as much as any two differently designed arms are going to have their own idiosyncrasies when it comes to cartridge matching and all that can really be said is that some are better all-rounders than others?

 

Thanks for taking the time on the response Rob.

Just to pick up on a few points:

I have Goldring 1040 and 1042, so VDH and Gyger S respectively, the Ortofon is a nude fine line with a tip radius given as "r/R 8/40 µm" don't quite understand that but it sounds like the Goldrings are finer?

On the energy into the cart/arm thing: one view I have heard put forward is that, by their nature, unipivots are less able to deal with this than more substantial arms. Given my experience of two unis (albeit with very different pivot set-ups) is this one of those generalisations that is just far too general, in as much as any two differently designed arms are going to have their own idiosyncrasies when it comes to cartridge matching and all that can really be said is that some are better all-rounders than others?

One other thing, given the vast range of carts available in the UK, why is such a glowing reputation attached to one that is not. Do we get the OC9 because they don't like us?
(Should add that I've never heard an OC9 but I'm sure is a very fine cart in its own right.)

 

The Goldrings do have the finer tip. I still have a collection of the older 900 series which are effectively the 1000 series in different, lighter mountings and with VDH tips. They were the first ever UK cartridges to use the VDH profile and my first encounter with a G920 gave me the cleanest reproduction I'd ever heard from vinyl at the time.

The 'r/R 8/40' spec means that as viewed from the side the width of the diamond face in contact with the vinyl is 8um, while the length running top to bottom is 40um.
Lines seek to place more diamond in contact with the vinyl, which in theory can reduce damage and wear to both record and tip, while allowing higher VTF since the force isn't so concentrated.

A VDH type 1 has a minor radius of just 2.5um and this gives superbly clean HF on a good cartridge. The Gyger is similar.

I wouldn't generalise with arms as the bearing is only one factor.

I guess the lack of AT33 availability in the Uk reflects lack of demand. Japan and the US are likely far larger markets for MC cartridges and so we get the 'cooking' OC9.
I've not heard the latest version but thought the original and ML/2 were excellent. A little toppy but pretty honest and great trackers.

 

Essentially what you are saying then is that either of the Goldrings should be well up there in their tracking ability based on stylus profile; but at the same time an MC with the same profile (all else being equal) wouldn't have the limitations you referred to at the top of the thread?

Where I'm getting to on this is wanting to understand why none of the MMs I've got is quite doing it on this arm (when the 1040/1042 have both performed very well in previous arms) before jumping ship and shelling out on an AT - not cheap - and introducing a further variable in the shape of a SUT.

One last thing - I've never quite been up with the vernacular in the context of:

is that like cooking sherry - fine for the trifle but you wouldn't want to drink it?

 

Yes I'd day say that the Goldrings succeed because they are very competent overal with very good tips.
Something like the AT33PTG overcomes the limitations of the MM generator principle so you get the best of both worlds.

On the OC9 and 'cooking' its a fine all rounder but not quite in the superb category IMO, unlike the 33.

 

Yup, I would definitely go low output MC.

 

The internal damping of the cartridge isn't a spec I've seen quoted.

Are there generalisations about cartridge damping MM vs MC or is it simply on a case by case basis?

 

The damping is rarely mentioned these days.

Back in the days before CD reviews would often comment on damping. It mainly affects the behaviour around the main LF resonance caused by the arm/cart mass and the compliance.

Grado were famous for using very little damping and if the arm matching was 'off' the cartridge would sometimes jump the groove - what became know as the 'Grado hop'

There are no generalisations though around the MM & MC groups with each designer going with their own preference.

 

On the LF resonance thing:

my simplistic view of this has been that if the low frequencies are not audibly a problem, ie I would expect the manifestation of the problem to be at the lower end of what I hear - then it's not a problem that concerns me.

However, I came across this paper yesterday: Audible effects of mechanical resonances in turntables

which, in as much as I understood it, goes a long way to explain the misapprehensions that I have been labouring under in terms of how LF issues can cause distortions higher up.

 

Well, it's here - so was Rob right?

Having played around a bit more I eventually went back to a Clearaudio Aurum Classics and for some reason it actually played more cleanly than either the Goldring or Ortofon though the tip is elliptical - as it turns out an AT95E tip in a wooden body.

This suggested that there wasn't really anything else amiss and also that I could sell both the other MMs. That, and a s/h Rothwell SUT then opened the door to the possibility of finally checking out a decent MC - so after a couple of false starts with sellers in Japan an order was placed to Hong Kong and a week or so later a little box duly arrived.

And

early days yet as it's only played half a dozen sides or so, but yes indeed it would appear to be doing rather well.

So, thanks Rob (I think)

It's going to take a little time to acclimatise to the differences in presentation I guess - most immediate thing is that it comes across as pretty relaxed (compared to what's gone before) but that's fine.