[[email protected]]

On Jun 26, 4:56 pm, "Harry Lavo" wrote:
The only problem with this test is that it didn't include any truly high-end
cartridges. I wonder what/why was left out of the other ten in the initial
test? My guess, either high end or low end carts that were readily
distinquishable, but perhaps not.-

How do you define a high-end cartridge? Subjective criteria or
impressions cannot be used because different individuals have
different tastes and because of the fact that in-ear frequency
responses between individuals may show substantial differences:

Shaw (1965), “Earcanal pressure generated by a free sound field”, J.
of Acoust. Soc. of America, vol. 39, no.3, p.465

Møller et al. (1995), “Head-related transfer functions of human
subjects”, J. of Audio Eng. Soc., p.300

So how do you OBJECTIVELY define high-end?

In 1982 the Shure V15 IV retailed at $200, the Ortofon MC30 at $850,
the Denon 103D at $295 (prices from Audio annual component directory).
Was the $850 Ortofon high-end or had it to be a $1000 Denon DL-1000,
or a $1300 van den Hul. When is a cartridge high-end, when is it “only
hifi” ?

What this test convincingly shows is that the moving coil principle is
not inherently superior. If it was, then any MC cartridge would be
subjectively better than any MM, which obviously it is not, provided,
of course, that one does not know the identity of the cartridges being
tested.

When I was buying my first cartridge ever 10 years ago (the ones
before were factory mounted on the turntables), I could not find any
arguments, other than subjective, to convince me of the superiority of
the moving coil cartridge. Today, 10 years later, I still haven’t seen
any convincing arguments for the superiority of MC.

Klaus