"Bill Taylor" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 19:08:27 -0000, "Serge Auckland"
wrote:

My question is why Moving Coils should be thought to be better than moving
magnets. I can think of several reasons why they should be worse, lower
compliance and higher mass, but not why they should be better.
Trackability
should be better on a MM, as should record wear due to lower tracking
weights.

The quality of the stylus may be better on an expensive cartridge, but in
my
own case, I have a Goldring 1042 and a Shure V15IIIMR. The stylus in the
Goldring is the Gyger S, I understand similar to the VdH, the Shure MR is
a
Namiki profile, so they are as good as anything available on a moving
coil.

Similarly, frequency response plots of moving magnets and moving coils
don't
show any particular benefit to the MC, nor does stereo separation or
harmonic and intermodulation distortion. So why *are* MC cartridges
throught
to be better?

If anyone knows of any good engineering reasons why this should be so, I
would be most interested to hear.

The only vaguely convincing explanation that I've heard is that MCs
can use less damping of the stylus assembly. Theoretically this
should allow better trackability at mid frequencies. I also have vague
recollections that the cantilever can more easily be made shorter,
which would help in keeping the effective tip mass down, which should
give better HF trackability. (Compliance only needs to be more than
about 10-12c.u. to track all records)

Not being a member of the MC owners club, I don't know if these
theories have any validity.

Bill

Interesting theories. Can you tell me a bit more as to why a compliance of
10-12cu is sufficient for all records? Interesting that in vinyl's heyday,
some cartridges were providing 30-40 cu. It could be a marketing exercise
rather than having a sound engineering reason for it, but it would be useful
to know why such high compliances are not necessary.

Thanks

S.