Moving Coil.

[crackorama]

I am tempted after thirty plus years of M.M. carts to invest in an M.C. I must confess to being intrigued by the Denon 103 and the replacement wood/aluminium body route, but as i have a Rega 250 (all be it a fully modded Origin Live job), I am hesitant, as the general consensus seems to be that this would be a bad match. My turntable is a souped up Lenco 75, playing through a rebuilt Denon PMA 850 amp and Ruark Palladin speakers.
I listen to mostly accoustic/vocal based stuff. Any advice or suggestions would be much appreciated.

Niel.

[NRG]

If you want to sample MC with the Rega in your current setup then go for the DL-110 or 160. High o/p and requires MM loading so no need for a SUT or MC stage.

[Reffc]

I'll buck the trend and argue against going HO Moving coil.

It has fewer benefits of MM and fewer attributes of LO MC. To get the high output, the coils have to be larger than L/O so inertia is greater hence distortion rises sharply with frequency on many H/O designs. A good MM equipped with a decent stylus will better any HO MC any day of the week imho.

If you want the benefits of MC, you really do have to look at low output designs, preferably with one of the more advanced line contact stylus profiles. Good MC carts can be bought for around £500. Few good ones can be bought under that value I'm afraid; at least few which better a decent MM that is. If you don't want the expense of an MC gain stage and LO cartridge, then a top notch MM might fit the bill, something like a Music Maker or cheaper (but almost as good) the 2M Black which is already gathering something of a cult status (the modern V15 perhaps?)

[Arkless Electronics]

I'll buck the trend and argue against going HO Moving coil.

It has fewer benefits of MM and fewer attributes of LO MC. To get the high output, the coils have to be larger than L/O so inertia is greater hence distortion rises sharply with frequency on many H/O designs. A good MM equipped with a decent stylus will better any HO MC any day of the week imho.

If you want the benefits of MC, you really do have to look at low output designs, preferably with one of the more advanced line contact stylus profiles. Good MC carts can be bought for around £500. Few good ones can be bought under that value I'm afraid; at least few which better a decent MM that is. If you don't want the expense of an MC gain stage and LO cartridge, then a top notch MM might fit the bill, something like a Music Maker or cheaper (but almost as good) the 2M Black which is already gathering something of a cult status (the modern V15 perhaps?)

+1

[337alant]

I have the rega RB300 and an OL250 I dont think its worth spending the money on the 250 upgrades I would recomend you sell the arm and put the money towards the Audiomods Rega arm kit as it is in a different league to the standard arms and would help hear the benefits of a good moving coil
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?28787-Audiomods-Rega-arm-Kit this is a link to a thread were I built up one of their kits
I am using an Ortofon Kontrapunkt b and an Autio Technica AT33EV MCs at the moment and they are both good carts with the ortofon my fav

Alan

[Beobloke]

I'll buck the trend and argue against going HO Moving coil.

It has fewer benefits of MM and fewer attributes of LO MC. To get the high output, the coils have to be larger than L/O so inertia is greater hence distortion rises sharply with frequency on many H/O designs. A good MM equipped with a decent stylus will better any HO MC any day of the week imho.

If you want the benefits of MC, you really do have to look at low output designs, preferably with one of the more advanced line contact stylus profiles. Good MC carts can be bought for around £500. Few good ones can be bought under that value I'm afraid; at least few which better a decent MM that is. If you don't want the expense of an MC gain stage and LO cartridge, then a top notch MM might fit the bill, something like a Music Maker or cheaper (but almost as good) the 2M Black which is already gathering something of a cult status (the modern V15 perhaps?)

+2

The problem I have with HOMCs is that, whilst they do have MM-ish output levels, they generally still need MC values of loading. Unless you have a fully configurable phono stage that offers a good range of gain and loading options, and not a unit that just has 'MM' or 'MC' settings, then you're not getting the best from them.

The last one I played with was an Ortofon of some description - it sounded terrible through a standard MM stage but absolutely superb once I'd sorted out its loading!

[walpurgis]

Never had a problem with the sound using a Denon DL-160 into various MM inputs.

The DL-160 is no longer available new, but good used examples appear on eBay and are well worth looking out for. It's a noticeably better cartridge than the DL-110, which is a bit 'bright & breezy' in comparison. I had several DL-160s, they may not be the ultimate MC, but I found them very pleasant and musical, with very low surface noise intrusion, it's not arm fussy either.

[337alant]

Neil,
I see you live in hartlepool?
I have a denon DL160 and a DL110 you can try if you wish:eyebrows:

Alan

[Reffc]

Never had a problem with the sound using a Denon DL-160 into various MM inputs.

The DL-160 is no longer available new, but good used examples appear on eBay and are well worth looking out for. It's a noticeably better cartridge than the DL-110, which is a bit 'bright & breezy' in comparison. I had several DL-160s, they may not be the ultimate MC, but I found them very pleasant and musical, with very low surface noise intrusion, it's not arm fussy either.

Whilst I agree with that Geoff, the 110 is still no better than a vast majority of MM cartridges, but it is certainly worse than quite a few. I think the question wasn't so much "recommend me an inoffensive HOMC" as much as to provide some advice and suggestions. The 110 and 160 are different from the 103HO but better? Not really. Not where distortion and loading considerations are concerned.

To reap the true benefits of LO MC budget really starts at £1000 for cartridge and stand alone gain device unless that is already in the system. That buys an awful lot of MM cartridge. I know where my money would go unless I already had an MC step up or gain stage, and it wouldn't be into a HO MC when MM can do it better.

[Arkless Electronics]

Whilst I agree with that Geoff, the 110 is still no better than a vast majority of MM cartridges, but it is certainly worse than quite a few. I think the question wasn't so much "recommend me an inoffensive HOMC" as much as to provide some advice and suggestions. The 110 and 160 are different from the 103HO but better? Not really. Not where distortion and loading considerations are concerned.

To reap the true benefits of LO MC budget really starts at £1000 for cartridge and stand alone gain device unless that is already in the system. That buys an awful lot of MM cartridge. I know where my money would go unless I already had an MC step up or gain stage, and it wouldn't be into a HO MC when MM can do it better.

Yes but one can get a very good MC phono stage quite cheap of late (ahem... erm.... from me! The Arkless 640P) which then leaves more money for the purchase of a decent LO MC!

[Marco]

Hi Jez,

Please check your emails and PMs... Cheers! :cool:

Marco.

[Andrew B]

I've never found an MM I can put up with, yet I've never spent anywhere close to 1k on a low output MC. The MCs I've had which (to me) are streets ahead of the MMs I've used include Dynavector 17D3, Denon DL103R, Audio Technica 0C9, AT32eII and AT33.

Personally I like the ATs in an RB300 or RB250 and you can get an AT33ev off Hifi Wigwam from a UK seller for £329 if that's not pushing it too far. You could always look for a used MC if that's stretching it.

I'm afraid I've never tried any HO MC in my own system so I can't really comment on them. Good luck whatever you decide.

Edit: I should add that I've done the nude/re bodied Denon route and they are good. Personally I thought the 103R was better again and far less hassle/risk.

[Arkless Electronics]

Hi Jez,

Please check your emails and PMs... Cheers! :cool:

Marco.

I've seen it Marco! Patience old boy, patience.... :)

[Marco]

No worries, old chap, but confirmation that you received them would've been nice ;)

Marco.

[crackorama]

Many thanks for the advice it is really appreciated. My Denon amp has a really nice M.C. stage onboard and i recently heard it running a Ortofon Rondo Red , whilst i
liked what i was hearing i personally found the Ortofon a bit forward for my taste in music, however it did get me thinking along the M.C. route , hence the post.
I am looking at a budget up to around £500 so all your suggestions are very welcome. Thanks again, Niel.

[Reffc]

Yes but one can get a very good MC phono stage quite cheap of late (ahem... erm.... from me! The Arkless 640P) which then leaves more money for the purchase of a decent LO MC!

Point taken Jez :lol:. Decent sub £500 MC stages are the exception though rather than the rule, most especially where SUTs are concerned.

[julesd68]

I've never found an MM I can put up with, yet I've never spent anywhere close to 1k on a low output MC. The MCs I've had which (to me) are streets ahead of the MMs I've used include Dynavector 17D3, Denon DL103R, Audio Technica 0C9, AT32eII and AT33. .

I've never found an MC I can put up with!

Wasn't impressed by the Ortofon or ZYX I owned with a previous phono-stage / SUT combo and have found AT's too forward for my liking whenever I have heard them.

But going to have another try with a recently acquired Lentek instead of a SUT once I have found a suitable low-output MC...

[Arkless Electronics]

Point taken Jez :lol:. Decent sub £500 MC stages are the exception though rather than the rule, most especially where SUTs are concerned.

It doesnt need an sut.... It is avalable for LO MC. Many reckon even the basic version ha no rivals less than £750 or so ;)

[Audioman]

The trick with many MC cartridges is correct loading. Hence I see loading options to be a more practical approach to purest one size fits all. To keep costs reasonable I would steer clear of SUT's - another box and another interconnect as well. I rather like the AT cartridges and using an AT0C9 II I don't find it too bright even with metal dome tweeters. Unfortunately prices have risen steeply from 5 years ago so to get a bargain you need to import. I am awaiting an AT33EV and will report on that in due course. The ZYX Paul (REFFC) is selling looks an extremely good buy and less than UK prices for AT and Dynavector 20X now. Budget phono stages which are good sounding and adaptable are thin on the ground at present. You could try a used Rega Fono MC (discontinued). Otherwise Dino+ or a Densen Drive with the mm/mc board. These should come up frequently as a used item.

Paul.

[337alant]

The trick with many MC cartridges is correct loading
Exactly Paul, some good info here:-

http://www.extremephono.com/Loading.htm
http://www.beavishifi.com/articles/Cartidge-Loading/
http://www.hagtech.com/loading.html

[Marco]

The trick with many MC cartridges is correct loading. Hence I see loading options to be a more practical approach to purest one size fits all. To keep costs reasonable I would steer clear of SUT's - another box and another interconnect as well.


Not if the SUTs are incorporated internally, into the same circuit as the phono stage... ;)

Also, loading options are only relevant for folk who like to fiddle or use more than one cartridge.

If that's not the case, and only one cartridge is used (which I'd suggest is the case for most people), once you've identified which loading (and/or gain) options best optimise your cartridge of choice, the facility becomes largely redundant - and you've got all those switches (and associated circuitry, necessary to provide the different loading options) sitting permanently in the signal path, affecting signal integrity, and ultimately the quality of the sound that you hear.

Far better, in my experience, either to have a bespoke phono stage built from the ground up by the manufacturer in question, which has been designed to optimise the electrical requirements of your cartridge of choice (a service which is available from many smaller, specialist manufacturers, such as Arkless or Croft, for example), minus the need for any loading switches, or use an SUT or head amp which, to your ears, best matches your cartridge.

Often the best way of achieving the above is to buy a cartridge and SUT from the same manufacturer, designed to work together, such as those from Ortofon, Denon, Audio Technica, Shelter, Lyra, etc. That way, both sonic and electrical synergy are achieved, and the subsequent results, in my experience, far outweigh those offered by variable phono stages, fitted with sonically degrading dip-switches and the added internal 'gubbins' needed to operate the various loading options.

Keep it simple, stupid, and only have in there exactly what is required in the first place!! :exactly:

Marco.

[337alant]

Update
Niel has borrwed my Denon DL110 and has reported back that it sounds excellent in his system. His Denon PMA 850 amp has an integral MM / MC phono with 47K / 100 Ohm loading

Alan

[chris@panteg]

Not if the SUTs are incorporated internally, into the same circuit as the phono stage... ;)

Also, loading options are only relevant for folk who like to fiddle or use more than one cartridge.

If that's not the case, and only one cartridge is used (which I'd suggest is the case for most people), once you've identified which loading (and/or gain) options best optimise your cartridge of choice, the facility becomes largely redundant - and you've got all those switches (and associated circuitry, necessary to provide the different loading options) sitting permanently in the signal path, affecting signal integrity, and ultimately the quality of the sound that you hear.

Far better, in my experience, either to have a bespoke phono stage built from the ground up by the manufacturer in question, which has been designed to optimise the electrical requirements of your cartridge of choice (a service which is available from many smaller, specialist manufacturers, such as Arkless or Croft, for example), minus the need for any loading switches, or use an SUT or head amp which, to your ears, best matches your cartridge.

Often the best way of achieving the above is to buy a cartridge and SUT from the same manufacturer, designed to work together, such as those from Ortofon, Denon, Audio Technica, Shelter, Lyra, etc. That way, both sonic and electrical synergy are achieved, and the subsequent results, in my experience, far outweigh those offered by variable phono stages, fitted with sonically degrading dip-switches and the added internal 'gubbins' needed to operate the various loading options.

Keep it simple, stupid, and only have in there exactly what is required in the first place!! :exactly:

Marco.

Hi Marco , I'm putting this to the test next week , I'm getting a Puresound T10 , should be very interesting trying out in my Marantz pearl lite phono stage and also into the Diablo , see what happens ?

[NRG]

Switched loading options for a SUT are usually made in parallel to the cart and SUT so no switches or components in the direct signal path. What is harder to determine is if the SUT has sufficient inductance to be compatible with the o/p impedance of the cart.

[Marco]

Hi Marco , I'm putting this to the test next week , I'm getting a Puresound T10 , should be very interesting trying out in my Marantz pearl lite phono stage and also into the Diablo , see what happens ?

Indeed, Chris. It's always interesting reading your views, so be sure to let us know what the outcome is! :)

Marco.

[chris@panteg]

Indeed, Chris. It's always interesting reading your views, so be sure to let us know what the outcome is! :)

Marco.

Thanks, I'll try my best , going to be as honest as I can, Guy told me that the low setting should work best , being 144 ohms, lower gain that is .

I've been looking to get an sut for some time , the T10 has a better spec than the Rothwell mc1.

[crackorama]

Many thanks for your input everyone and a big thankyou to Alan for the loan of his Denon 110. I am really enjoying the Denon playing through my M.C. input and wish i had made the
jump earlier, i will be investing in a 110 as it suits my needs perfectly . :)

[337alant]

Glad you like it Niel, just keep hold of it until you get a new one
This looks like a decent deal
http://www.powerdirect.co.uk/product/DENON-DL110-High-Output-Moving-Coil-Cartridge?gclid=CIT936OZ3boCFY5b3godDQIADg

Alan

[Arkless Electronics]

Thanks, I'll try my best , going to be as honest as I can, Guy told me that the low setting should work best , being 144 ohms, lower gain that is .

I've been looking to get an sut for some time , the T10 has a better spec than the Rothwell mc1.

Have you checked this out? http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?28807-Any-interest-in-MC-head-amps/page11

[chris@panteg]

Have you checked this out? http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?28807-Any-interest-in-MC-head-amps/page11


Yes I have, not sure at the moment, am keeping an open mind !

[Reffc]

Not if the SUTs are incorporated internally, into the same circuit as the phono stage... ;)

Also, loading options are only relevant for folk who like to fiddle or use more than one cartridge.

If that's not the case, and only one cartridge is used (which I'd suggest is the case for most people), once you've identified which loading (and/or gain) options best optimise your cartridge of choice, the facility becomes largely redundant - and you've got all those switches (and associated circuitry, necessary to provide the different loading options) sitting permanently in the signal path, affecting signal integrity, and ultimately the quality of the sound that you hear.

Far better, in my experience, either to have a bespoke phono stage built from the ground up by the manufacturer in question, which has been designed to optimise the electrical requirements of your cartridge of choice (a service which is available from many smaller, specialist manufacturers, such as Arkless or Croft, for example), minus the need for any loading switches, or use an SUT or head amp which, to your ears, best matches your cartridge.

Often the best way of achieving the above is to buy a cartridge and SUT from the same manufacturer, designed to work together, such as those from Ortofon, Denon, Audio Technica, Shelter, Lyra, etc. That way, both sonic and electrical synergy are achieved, and the subsequent results, in my experience, far outweigh those offered by variable phono stages, fitted with sonically degrading dip-switches and the added internal 'gubbins' needed to operate the various loading options.

Keep it simple, stupid, and only have in there exactly what is required in the first place!! :exactly:

Marco.

Incorporating the SUT makes no difference at all Marco from an electrical design POV with the exception of the considerations of impacts of interconnects on the signal wrt capacitance loading and shielding (more specifically the S/N ratio).

I'd agree though that if you don't change carts too often, and have settled on one loading (not difficult since what the manufacturer's recommend is usually a good starting place and more often than not, the ending place too) then a decent SUT is every bit as good as a decent gain stage using op amps, valves or whatever. In each case, the keeping odd order distortion low, particularly higher order odd order distortion, as with all other areas of hifi design, is the key. There are plenty of superb SUTs which offer low even and odd order distortion. There are good and bad examples, just as there are with anything else. My own SUTs are wound specifically to minimise distortion and offer superb frequency response, and I'd put them up against any on board SUT any day of the week ;). They are not better than a good gain stage, just a different way of achieving the same goal. As with any design, there are compromises and difficulties to be overcome, but in terms of fidelity, a good stand alone SUT mated to say something like the Hagerman Bugle phonostage (the kit stage available for peanuts) or any well designed and reasonably priced MM phonostage can embarrass way more expensive "all in one box" solutions.

No right and wrong at the end of the day wrt to the solution but it really doesn't have to cost the earth to get first class results, just care and attention to matching.

[Marco]

Hi Paul,

I completely agree. I was mainly addressing Paul (Audioman's) assertion that the use of an SUT automatically necessitated having an extra box and a pair of cables, which isn't the case if the transformers in question are hard-wired internally to the same circuit as the phono stage :)

I intend to do that with the transformers in my ST-80SE, for the reasons you describe here:


...with the exception of the considerations of impacts of interconnects on the signal wrt capacitance loading and shielding (more specifically the S/N ratio).


...which, as a result, I'm hopeful will result in an improvement, particularly as the metal casing on the ST-80SE is rather surprisingly magnetic! I've no idea why they didn't use something that was non-ferrous.

With regards to loading options and switches, as a diehard purist, I always like to keep things simple and protect signal integrity wherever possible in my system. Therefore, the 'hairshirt approach' (nothing supplied on equipment that isn't absolutely necessary/hard-wire wherever possible) is always something that will appeal and fit with my sensibilities.

Others are of course entitled to prefer a different, and equally valid, approach :cool:

Marco.

[Audioman]

I think a point is that everyone is rather missing Ralph's original question. He is dipping his toes into the water with Moving Coils and I assume is looking for a cost effective way of enjoying the benefits of one. Hence my comments about the expense of an SUT plus extra set of interconnects. Also he may not at this stage be committing to a model/brand with certain loading characteristics. In his situation an active MC stage with some adjustment may be a more practical and less costly solution. Not saying this is going to provide ultimate sound quality but might provide a level of sound quality that he will be happy with for an extended period. Excellent sound can be achieved without spending well over a thousand pounds.

[Marco]

Sure, Paul. In that context, you're right.

I was simply outlining things from a different perspective, for anyone else reading who may have been contemplating trying an SUT, and been more focussed on obtaining ultimate sound quality (without a separate box, cables or switches required as part of the equation) :)

One must remember that discussions on forums are not just for the benefit of the OP, but also (on a site such as this) many hundreds of 'lurkers'...

Marco.

[Reffc]

I think a point is that everyone is rather missing Ralph's original question. He is dipping his toes into the water with Moving Coils and I assume is looking for a cost effective way of enjoying the benefits of one. Hence my comments about the expense of an SUT plus extra set of interconnects. Also he may not at this stage be committing to a model/brand with certain loading characteristics. In his situation an active MC stage with some adjustment may be a more practical and less costly solution. Not saying this is going to provide ultimate sound quality but might provide a level of sound quality that he will be happy with for an extended period. Excellent sound can be achieved without spending well over a thousand pounds.

I think that was answered Paul, at least a few suggestions were offered, one of which was "don't go HOMC" as these days, MM cartridges offer equal/better performance than the best HOMC designs, so there doesn't seem a lot of point in going MC unless LO. That said, an unfortunate necessity IS the extra boxes, be that a gain stage or SUT, and the interconnects, hence the thread drift, all of which I believe are pertinent as making a decision on an MC cartridge needs to be considered in light of system requirements and budget. The real advantages of going moving coil cannot be had with high output designs (sweeping generalisation; there may be exceptions but I don't yet know of them).

[Marco]

+1 :)

Marco.

[Audioman]

I think that was answered Paul, at least a few suggestions were offered, one of which was "don't go HOMC" as these days, MM cartridges offer equal/better performance than the best HOMC designs, so there doesn't seem a lot of point in going MC unless LO. That said, an unfortunate necessity IS the extra boxes, be that a gain stage or SUT, and the interconnects, hence the thread drift, all of which I believe are pertinent as making a decision on an MC cartridge needs to be considered in light of system requirements and budget. The real advantages of going moving coil cannot be had with high output designs (sweeping generalisation; there may be exceptions but I don't yet know of them).


I don't know why you thought I was advocating high output MCs Paul. I have always used superior LO MCs. Just that the alternative to MM stage plus SUT is more appropriate on a more limited budget or as an entry to enjoying a MC cartridge. It's also possible that Ralph's amp has a good MC input as quite a few did from 30 years ago.

[Reffc]

I don't know why you thought I was advocating high output MCs Paul. I have always used superior LO MCs. Just that the alternative to MM stage plus SUT is more appropriate on a more limited budget or as an entry to enjoying a MC cartridge. It's also possible that Ralph's amp has a good MC input as quite a few did from 30 years ago.

I agree with that Paul. Yes, assumptions were made but I guess the answer was in general terms (ie pros/cons).