The advantage would be still an interchangeable stylus, even if all other parameters (such as output) were identical.

Thats a fantastic question! And i dont understand why a shrunken magnet in a MM type might not be extremely desirable...a)it would give user replaceable styli b)the stylus would track more accurately. Well done for thinking of this smart question!!

There are low output non-MC cartridges like those from Grado Labs & Soundsmith, which are "moving iron" cartridges, which have low mass, as well as be run into a MC phono stage.

The question is fair and there are examples of cartridges made with such compromise obviously benefitting from lower mass needing MC phono input. I think one reason you don’t want to do it is the signal quality is less than MC.

We have achieved the ' no mass' phono cartridge .. the DS audio DS003 optical ... there's no mass ! It does however require a different phono stage .. I've recently acquired one and I highly recommend it 👍

Who says MC has lower mass, copper coils on iron cross, all dense materials vs a rather small magnet of samarian- cobalt like on a Stanton. But it doesn’t really matter as all that mass is in close proximity to the pivot point and contributes little to the inertia, like the heavy counterweight in a tonearm. The cantilever and stylus are far more important. Tapered aluminium is probably the lightest, and small shank stylus, also shorter cantilever (some Dynavector). In the 70’s exotic MM cartridges with unobtanium cantilevers(tubular beryllium, boron or sapphire) would state their effective mass in spec sheets, nobody does that anymore. The top MC cartridges today use heavy diamond cantilevers, so light mass is not what drives performance. Maybe it is market driven, Soundsmith makes low output versions because that’s what people expect in an expensive cartridge.

Stanton once made some moving-magnet cartridges that had the low output of typical MC cartridges. I don't see much point in those products, unless they reduced the mass of the magnet, accepting a reduction in output voltage. I'm wondering if Stanton did exactly what the query suggests.

The new tech is optical cartridge for phono.

The voltage output is a direct relationship between the number of coils moving through a specific magnetic field. All else equal, smaller magnets would be less voltage. Moving them down into the MC area. Variable reluctance. Fixed coil and magnet structure. Moving metal between them to vary the magnetic field that way. The metal is far less mass than either a magnet or coil. Acutex came out with a line using this after Audio Technica came out with their line which had the patented dual magnet V design. AT sued Acutex because they copied the dual magnetic V structure patent.

Inertia, a property of Mass in Classical Physics.

DS Audio produce an optical cartridge which has an optical reader, and low mass, i have never heard one used.

The Ortofon OM series are incredibly small must have a small magnet then?

Pickering has made exactly such cartridge in the past (I believe something with 7800 in the model name). I would call that a proof of concept. It was highly regarded as well. So if you ask why they don't make it any more (under the Stanton name)? I would say it is not a given that it was not good enough. I guess they lost the know how. The same happened with Shure, and sadly they gave up on phono cartridges all together. Stanton is holding on for dear life. You could conciser them a Zombie company.

I think the mass was shrunk with the introduction of neodymium to give same field strength but smaller.

For once Paul seems to have sidestepped the question, although he seems to understand it. Two (dominant) wiggly groove playback technologies: MM high output plus high moving stuff mass negative; MC low output minus low moving stuff mass positive, wires connect to stuff attached to needle, negative (and nobody seems concerned with the necessary bending of those wires adding to inertia). So why not strike a balance by reducing the mass in a MM?

No Mas…No Mas I’ve had enough with this cartridge talk.

That's how it works. Someone like Albert Einstein didn't make many mistakes.

Kind of a confused answer. On the one hand you're saying "the less mass the better", yet on the other hand you're saying "I don't understand why you'd want to reduce the mass".

phono cartridge technology goes back to pre world war times , Boss , i think , production of phono cartridge , should be discontinued a long time ago , as it is only a mechanical to electrical signal transducer , doesn't last long, too expensive , very much antiquated by modern technological standards.

I don't see any reason to reinvent phono cartridges.

This is the first time I have felt like bs coming from you until the final "I donno". It is actually an interesting question and I'd actually like to hear an answer that made sense. Sorry; but you didn't help yourself with this one.

@0:59 "You have a cantilever, which is the needle." Stereos do not have needles. It is a stylus. I wonder... would he call a stylus a needle if he were in a meeting with the executives and top engineers of Clearaudio, Air Tight, VPI, Ortofon, SME, Koetsu, Lyra, etc? Doesn't he know that such executives and engineers watch these videos? Let's not have an educational channel misinform the viewers. This is not the first time that our host has done that. He has done it in several videos.