2. analog
  3. 168226-3976

Classic Ortofon Cartridges: The MC2000 MK II or the MC3000 MK II?

So I have owned quite a few Otofon cartridges over the years, everything from the modest OM cartridges to a couple of Cadenza up to an A90. I typically enjoy Ortofon cartridges.

Now one I have never owned is the MC2000. It seems from a bit of reading I have done that owners of the MC2000 felt it was the most accurate of the Ortofon cartridges, and that releases after it were not its equal.

However, when you look at the MC3000 it has a higher output level that would allow it to work with my Esoteric phono stage. The Esoteric is happy running an MC200 on it which has .09 mV output. but the MC2000 is .05 mV. The MC 3000 MK II is .13 mV from what I find.

Has anyone spent time listening to these classic MC 000 series of Ortofon cartridges? I know there is also a 5000 and 7500, but those seem to be pretty rare.

Regarding the MC2000, I wonder if I use a low mass headshell if I can use it on the Dynavector DV505. I don’t think the mass of the arm in the horizontal plane should affect it, and the vestigial arm can be configured to be an appropriate match for the compliance on this cartridge.

I currently have an MC200u on the arm and its very surprising regarding how good it sounds. Its actually pretty neutral, pretty expressive, but just a bit relaxed in the top end. I certainly enjoy it, but I wonder how these statement cartridges from the classic Ortofon line will sound. These would have been from their long time designer who has now retired, so its a different era of Ortofon versus what their current offerings are. Even though we should acknowledge that the current cartridges use design principals that were developed from this earlier time period and engineering team. 

Thoughts?
neonknight
rossb
188 posts
 
How would the Ortofon Jubilee compare with these older cartridges? The Jubilee was at the top of Ortofon's range in its time.
I have just bought a "new" Jubilee from Ortofon's Treasure Trove and have been very impressed with it. I like it better than my Windfeld Ti and Cadenza Black.
lewm
13,436 posts
 
It’s always a subjective judgment to say who got enough credit for what, but if I recall the original Gordon Holt review of the MC2000 and the T2000, in Stereophile, he was blown away, despite his misgivings about its high compliance and very low output. And back then Holt was “the man” so far as high end audio reviews were concerned, at least as influential as MF is today. I believe he put the MC2000 at the top of the heap. Of course, HP shared the top status with JGH. I don’t recall reading his review.
pindac's avatar
pindac
2,864 posts
 
In terms of advanced technology, the Jubilee was the next generation.
New Body Shape, WRD was possibly with changed materials to suit the new cantilever,  Silver Wire on the Coils, Boron Cantilever with Shibata Stylus.
The Kontrapunkt Range was most likely produced using loaned technologies from this design, but veered in the design with the use of the Cantilever and Stylus assemblies.
This range never received the WRD Technology, but was produced with the early versions of the FSE Technology. 
Literature uses references to the Jubilee as comparisons in the delivery.

The Ortofon Vienna was an added design to fit in with a certain market demand, it also has the Jubilee Technology on board with a changed WRD to produce more Bass and the FSE was incorporated.
It was almost the base model for the Windfeld to be built from.  

The Windfeld was the next generation in advancement to the Jubilee and Kontrapunkt Range.
The Cadenza Range was produced loaning the updates in Technologies used on the Windfeld. 

The Ortofon 0000's Range used early WRD Technology, Copper Wire for the Coils, Aluminium Cantilevers and Replicant and FG Stylus.
There was a noticeable mass to the bodies.
I would feel there would be a noticeable richness to the presentation of this type of design.    
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,123 posts
 
Dear @rossb  : I owned too the Jubilee and been a very good quality performer its overall " presentation " is different from the Windfeld model  due that are way different kind of overall designs.

As with any cartridge it's not easy to compare to other cartridges because we can't be totally sure that this or that cartridge mates the better with the tonearm. We could have a good idea of their performance levels and from thoser kind of comparisons we have to be sure that the alignment and overall set up of each cartridge is accurated for both samples and that the SPL for the comparison sessions be the same.

Good that you own all those Ortofon cartridges. Enjoy it.

R.


lewm
13,436 posts
 
From reading Neonknight’s quote from the Ortofon website, I have a hunch what they are saying is that when you heat Aluminum Oxide to 1600 degrees C, it will form a ceramic-like substance, but being an oxide of aluminum, I am not sure it meets the formal definition of a "ceramic", as summarized in Wiki and elsewhere: "Ceramic material is an inorganic, non-metallic, often crystalline oxide, nitride, or carbide material. Some elements, such as carbon or silicon, may be considered ceramics. Ceramic materials are brittle, hard, strong in compression, and weak in shearing and tension."
So, since the body is an oxide of Aluminum, which is a metal, the body of the Ortofon cartridges does not meet this formal definition. Other sources give essentially the same definition, including the "non-metallic" qualifier.
More to discover