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
neonknight OP
432 posts
 
This should be an interesting experiment. I was attempting to purchase the matching T3000 transformer from a seller on UKAudiomart, but he never responded. 
In the process of looking around I came across a Conrad Johnson HV1. This is an active head amp but it uses Nuvistor tubes. Very few components do use this gain device, and all of them that I have heard sound remarkable. The price was quite reasonable, so I bought it last night. Should have it in about 5 to 7 days, and we are going to give it a shot with the MC3000. 

This seems to be a forgotten head amp but was well received in the day. One owner posted it can be a bit microphonic, I wonder if that is due to the tubes they had installed. I also am curious if it inverts phase like some CJ components do, and if so I will take care of that at the cartridge leads as inverting speaker wires is a pain in the butt. 

Should be a grand experiment!
lewm
13,804 posts
 
Back in “the day”, head amps were perhaps more common than SUTs for augmenting phono gain to levels required for LOMC cartridges. One of the best was the Counterpoint SA2, which was all tube. I owned one for a while. It was a bit noisy but mine could have had a problem I was not capable of detecting back then. I think NYAL had one that used nuvistors. Mark Levinson had a solid state model. Let us know how yours works out.
chakster's avatar
chakster
6,144 posts
 
My ZYX headamp is back and I like this flavor a lot with low impedance FR-7f cartridge. Check in my virtual system page on audiogon.
lewm
13,804 posts
 

Edgeware, In his original Stereophile review, none other than J Gordon Holt rated the MC2000 the best he had yet heard, while he also cited its problems (high cost and minuscule output). So I’d say the MC2000 put Ortofon on the high end map. There was no one more influential back then than Holt, except maybe HP. But Holt was the elder statesman, having founded S'phile way before HP founded TAS.

Anyway, this thread got me thinking about my MC7500, which has been sitting on a shelf for more than a year (or maybe more than a few years), not in use.  Today I mounted it in my Kenwood L07D, driving Raul's 3160 Phonolinepreamp into modified Atma-sphere amplifiers driving modified Sound Lab 845PXs.  After about an hour of warm up, the MC7500 is very very good.  Better than I remembered it.  More "musical" and better in low bass definition and extension, compared to the AT ART7 it displaced.  I plan to listen to it for an extended period. I am still not sure if I would rate it ahead of my MC2000. I was surprised to read that the recommended VTF is 2.2 to 2.7g, as for the MC2000.  I wonder why two such high compliance cartridges require relatively high VTF. Perhaps due to stylus shape? Comments appreciated.

edgewear
543 posts
 

Lewm, the MC 2000 has a recommended VTF of 1.5 gram, so very different from MC 7500. The compliance of the MC 2000 is also much higher than MC 7500 (don’t have the exact numbers), so I would assume the suspension of the MC 2000 demands lower tracking force. The MC 7500 is more in line with the other top level Ortofons like Anna and A95 that also have high VTF of 2.6 and 2.3 grams respectively. This has never bothered me. Most of my classical records were issued in the late 50’s and early 60’s and were most likely played on very crude playback devices with tracking forces of 5 grams or more (remember those?). They have survived these conditions against all odds, so I have no doubt they can handle modern cartridges or even SPU’s with ease.

As for the stylus shape: the stylus of MC 2000 is one of the smallest I’ve ever seen. By comparison the Ortoline of MC 7500 and Replicant 100 in other top Ortofons look like big boulders.

More to discover