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
lewm
13,363 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.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,112 posts
 
From Wiki too:

"""  Known as alpha alumina in materials science communities or alundum (in fused form) or aloxite[20] in the mining and ceramic communities aluminium oxide finds wide use. Annual world production of aluminium oxide in 2015 was approximately 115 million tonnes, over 90% of which is used in the manufacture of aluminium metal.[7] The major uses of speciality aluminium oxides are in refractories, ceramics, polishing and abrasive applications.

Most ceramic eyes on fishing rods are circular rings made from aluminium oxide...""

No one talk of that formal ceramic definition. 

R.
dover
2,274 posts
 
No one talk of that formal ceramic definition.
Actually transition metal oxides such as aluminium oxide are referred to in materials engineering as ceramic.

@lewm 
Ceramic material is an inorganic, non-metallic, often crystalline oxide, nitride, or carbide material. 
Your quote from  Wiki is self explanatory - what do you think "carbide" is. 


lewm
13,363 posts
 
Dover, I think a carbide can be made by combining aluminum oxide with carbon at high heat. That’s what I think, having looked it up just like you probably did. I also think that there was no mention of carbon being used in the manufacture of the ortofon cartridge bodies. Ergo they can’t be carbides based on the information previously divulged. Or a nitride or a nonmetallic oxide. If you and Raul believe that an aluminum oxide by itself can qualify as a ceramic after appropriate processing, ok.
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 
The ''body'' versus the ''naked'' preference enigma. There is no
logic by preferences becuse those are ''subjective'' by ''nature''.
But even so contradictory satements should cause at least
some uneasy feeling. Why should cart desigener like Car,
Dertonarm, Ortofon , etc., etc. make so mach efforts with
even ''exotic materials'' to build ''resonance free'' bodies while
naked are not only much more easy to produce but also
much cheaper?  Doing whatever without any reason can
only (?) be explained by ''passion''. For example Rauls
passion to imrove things like many speaker owners who try
to improvw their speaker by more expensive wire. Removing
Faraday cage from Allaerts MC 2 or any other version
imply to know better than the designer himslef. But that is
how ambitious amateurs  think. 

More to discover