Audio, hi-fi and car audio - Why moving coil

Audio Banter (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/forum.php)

- uk.rec.audio (General Audio and Hi-Fi) (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/uk-rec-audio-general-audio/)

- - Why moving coil (https://www.audiobanter.co.uk/uk-rec-audio-general-audio/3811-why-moving-coil.html)

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.

Thanks

S.

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 moving coils are lighter but put out less energy than the moiving
magnets.
Thanks

S.

Serge Auckland wrote:

Snipped

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

Thanks

S.

I have never been sold on MC being better I like some MC cartridges
but always seem happier with MM

--
Dave
www.davewhitter.myby.co.uk

Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Steam is Fun

Bret Ludwig wrote:

The moving coils are lighter but put out less energy than the moiving
magnets.

Voltage, maybe, but if you look at the source resistance of a MC, I am
not sure its less "energy".

The stylus on a MC does I suspect have less mass to move.

--
Nick

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:18:11 +0000, Nick Gorham wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:

The moving coils are lighter but put out less energy than the moiving
magnets.

Voltage, maybe, but if you look at the source resistance of a MC, I am
not sure its less "energy".

energy too, but it's not as if your driving your speakers directly.
Fortunately we have an invention called the amplifier.

The stylus on a MC does I suspect have less mass to move.

--
Nick

I always kind of assumed that was the reason. But I don't know
enough about such things to be sure.

Why not ask Ortofon or one of the still-extant cartrige manufacturers?

Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=fleetie

"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
...
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?

**Er, not quite. The FR plots of MC carts, in some cases, CAN be shown to be
superior. The reason, of course, is blindingly simple. It's all about
inductance. The inductance of (LOW OUTPUT) MC carts is very low, indeed.
This enables them to produce a very flat, very wide (up to around 60kHz)
frequency response, with a correspondingly superior rise time. The real
benefit of such a system is that LC resonance effects are often well outside
the audible range. This means that a low output MC cart may exhibit a very
flat phase response within the audio band. This may not be the case with
high output MC carts nor with some MM carts.

For the record: Many, well designed, MM carts do not exhibit any resonance
problems without the audio band.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:18:11 +0000, Nick Gorham wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:

The moving coils are lighter but put out less energy than the moiving
magnets.

Voltage, maybe, but if you look at the source resistance of a MC, I am
not sure its less "energy".

energy too, but it's not as if your driving your speakers directly.
Fortunately we have an invention called the amplifier.

Yep, you are right, just compaired a Goldring MM and Ortofon MC, MM
about 3.5 times the energy out compaired to the MC.

--
Nick

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:04:18 +0000, Nick Gorham wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:18:11 +0000, Nick Gorham wrote:

Bret Ludwig wrote:

The moving coils are lighter but put out less energy than the moiving
magnets.

Voltage, maybe, but if you look at the source resistance of a MC, I am
not sure its less "energy".

energy too, but it's not as if your driving your speakers directly.
Fortunately we have an invention called the amplifier.

Yep, you are right, just compaired a Goldring MM and Ortofon MC, MM
about 3.5 times the energy out compaired to the MC.

I'm curious: what unit is that 'energy' measurement? Is it a power
measurement ie: microwatts, etc? I usually think of energy in joules,
power in jules/s or watts. I've never heard of anybody giving a ****
about a cartridges 'energy' measurement; just the voltage output
and recomended load capacitance.