2. analog
  3. 1275613117

What MC for $1,000-$2,000?

Well, call me surprised when my Quatro Signature II woods didn't like my new DENON 103-R. It ate it alive and spit it out like so much wood from a wood chiper.

The bass was decent, with nice punch. But from there it wasn't so good. Weak imaging (on Vandersteen Quatro's!), midrange was cloudy and had no depth at all. Cat Stevens sounded like cardboard. He sings from down in his chest, but the DENON comes across FLAT as AM radio. The highs were depressed in dynamics and extension. No amount of stylus rake angle (some call this VTA, but it isn't) or stylus pressure ETC changed the basic sonic signature. I had a 103D model that sounded good on my Dhalquist DQ-10's with morror imaged KEF tweeter mods and dual DQ-1W subs, so I went with what I thought I knew. I know NOTHING!

I re installed my thirty year old Accuphase AC-2 and WOW, is that a nice cartridge or what, compared to the Denon 103R on Quatros. EVERYTHING just opened up. Bass was tight and lost the too warm sound, the mids were precise and stood in space with tons of air and ambience (strings are stunning). The highes are fast and open. In short, this was a good cart. It seems to have a left channel acting up so I need to consider a replacement. No matter where I set the AC-2, it was simply worlds away from the 103R.

The problem with the Quatro's, is that they are so good at what they do for the price that you seem to really, really, need to spend on a pick-up that can match their abilities. Way more than I expected! The DENON 103R is not a bad cartridge at all, it just limits what the Quatros can do, and the AC-2 let me know that in spades that performance is being left on the table, rats. Sure, it would be nice to change cartridges until I can't hear a change anymore, and KNOW that the speakers are now the limiting source, but I can't do that. Its hard to audition a cartridge at all.

So what are you guys and gals using with high definition speakers? I looked at a Dynavector KARATE 17DS that seems like a possibility. Worse, is that I have no real reference for WHERE the AC-2 stands in general timber to what's out there. It sure is good sounding on the Quatro's, that's for sure. The AC-2 isn't "warm" but past that I'd say it was tight and fast, with an extremely open mid on up. What's available that matches that description?

This can get plenty frustration, as the cartridge is probably, I say definitely, every bit as important as your speakers, but with almost no real way to audution them.

I use;
Sim Audio LP-5.3 MC/MM pre amp
Ariston RD-IIs Turn Table
SME series III tone arm
McCormack DNA-225 amp
McCormack MAP-1 pre amp
Quatro Signature II woods
OPPO BDP-83SE CD unit.
rower30
dougdeacon
3,338 posts
 
I'm no fan of Linn tables. Nor is "toe tapping" any sort of serious sonic parameter in my book. But my experience is that Ivor got the order of precedence right.

The functions of a table and arm are to (a) spin the LP at a precise velocity despite constantly varying loads; (b) provide a mobile yet stable, suitably mass-matched platform for the cartridge; (c) manage stray resonance energies coming from the cartridge; and (d) isolate the cartridge from external resonances. These tasks are fiendishly difficult. Performing them well is not inexpensive and the inadequacies of a cheap table/arm will compromise the performance of any cartridge. Even worse, the more revealing the cartridge the more noticeable the inadequacies of a rig become.

I've owned 6-7 inexpensive rigs and two pretty good ones ($6K/$11K). I've tried 18-20 cartridges, from $75 MMs to LOMC's costing up to $8K.

Without exception, the good table/arm with any cheap cartridge hugely outperformed any cheap table/arm with a good cartridge. So I'm with Audiofeil and 213cobra.
rower30 OP
211 posts
 
I'm with what my AC-2 does on my SME III, it kicks butt on Quatro Wood signature II's!. And probably with a 50-50 set-up, even.

Sure, a pefect set-up is nice, but then again, why on earth do we listen to records with the turntable in the same darn room! You shake, so does the tone arm, and it is defenseless against that. I'd say that that out weights about ANYTHING that the record grove is doing to the inertia in the tone arm or visa versa. A tone arm is designed to stabilize what the stulus is doing in the groove. It sure wasn't made to defeat the kind of bass the Quatros put out. And in light of this, the SME III with the AC-2 sounds crisp and tight (it shouldn't!) somehow.

I've looked at tone arms and that is a messy situation. I can blindly "buy" a tonearm, but you can't "shop" for the right tonearms as there is precious little data to support what they are intended to run well based on their mass and adjustment ranges. Some Sweet spot (there is indeed one) on cartridge weight and compliance would be nice. But nope, just useless data relative to what arm to match with what cartridge. Why should you have to guru shop for a tonearm? The operational data is certainly there, somewhere. it should be easier to find. I can't even tell SME III is really meant to do, and with what.

For now, I'll keep my Ariston RD II s and SME III and set my sights on more compliant cartridges.
rower30 OP
211 posts
 
What I settled on is a Benz Micro Ruby 3 factory new re-tip for $1,750.00. This cartridge sounds wonderful and works just fine on my SME III tonearm. So, it is a far cry from the Denon 103R and matches(if not smoother sounding than)my AC-2 Accuphase.

One product I didn't get a change to hear is "The Voice" brand cartridges. Any comments on those? I may send my second arm to be rewired by them and get a moving iron version as a back-up if I get a chance to listen to one. And yes, this design should be the best match (on paper) for my tonearm.
More to discover