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
best-groove's avatar
best-groove
842 posts
 
Sure, otherwise I would have sold it a long time ago. photo


lewm
13,012 posts
 
edgewear, I never found the MC7500 to sound "edgy" or harsh at all.  In fact, I would characterize it as remarkably neutral, almost to a fault, which is to say that if anything it fell a bit short on bringing out the drama and contrasts put into the music by the musicians.  But as in most cases where one tries to describe an aural impression, what I just wrote is an exaggeration.  It's a very find cartridge, in my opinion.
edgewear
543 posts
 
I also have the Rohmann and it's interesting to compare it to MC7500. Same cantilever and stylus, but different coils and different body material. While the Rohmann is a really nice cartridge, the MC7500 is in another league. It confirms that cantilever material and stylus profile do not determine sound quality any more than other parts like coils and body material do.

edgewear
543 posts
 
Lewm, I was exaggerating as well in order to make the distinction. The MC7500 is every bit as neutral as MC2000, but the stylus profile demands more attention to bring it out. It's thrown out of neutral more easily so to speak. What gives it a (positive) edge over MC2000 is the ability to deliver greater dynamic contrasts, but this might very well be system dependent.

lewm
13,012 posts
 
For the record, I meant to write "fine cartridge", not "find cartridge" in my summary of the 7500.

My impression of the two cartridges, 2000 vs 7500 is just the opposite of yours, in two different tonearms on two different systems. I found the 2000 to be more lush and a bit more dynamic, in the best possible ways. Goes to show ya..... something.

Neon, I have a longstanding interest in the Transfiguration cartridges. It was a great loss when that company went out of business, but given the nearly incestuous relationships among Japanese cartridge manufacturers, it may well be the case that the top line Transfigurations live on, under another name.
More to discover