Feedback on Monster Alpha 2 Cartridge


For those of you deep into the analog realm, anyone have any experience with Monster Alpha 2 cartridge. Believe it was designed by the current founder/president/chief designer of Zyx cartridges - Hisayoshi Nakatsuka - and it came out in 1988 I believe. Supposedly was a very good cartridge at the time and is quite sought after today. Apparently it's strong suits were speed, articulation and resolution but also set a new standard for sound staging at it's time. That's all I know.

Anyone here owned or heard one? For those who have, I would appreciate any sonic impressions/description of the cart. They normally go for $500-550 in used market nowadays (not bad for a 27 year old design) in good condition. Have the opportunity to get one for $400. Any help would be appreciated.

Just to add to the question, if I don't get this, I will likely just get a Dynavector 20X2 instead, so any comments as to how it would compare to the Dyna cart would also be appreciated.

In case it's helpful, I have the Nagra BPS phonostage. The cartridge will be mounted on a Graham 2.2 tonearm running on a Basis 2001 table. Rest of system is ARC Ref 3/110 (pre/power) amps and Thiel 2.4 speakers.

Thanks
cmalak
Other than they are extremely well regarded and sought after, I've never heard one.

However, just because it is 27 years old doesn't mean that it doesn't compare today. I'm sure it does and it might well smoke many cartridges today However, that is speculation based only on myth until get my hands on one, too.
"06-28-15: Raymonda
Other than they are extremely well regarded and sought after, I've never heard one.

However, just because it is 27 years old doesn't mean that it doesn't compare today. I'm sure it does and it might well smoke many cartridges today However, that is speculation based only on myth until get my hands on one, too."

I have no doubt that you can be right on that. My only concern is that it seems risky buying a cartridge that old. Especially if its used.
Your assessment of how old a cartridge is vs. How
it stacks up to current models is right on the
mark. I bought a 1989 NOS SUMIKO TALISMAN
VIRTUOSO TITANIUM that simply throws a huge
Soundstage with pacing and bass. Anyone that
knows of this cartridge will tell you it is
better than anything SUMIKO sells today.
In re:to The monster cartridge in question the
one you want to be looking for is The Alpha
genesis 2000 which along with my cartridge were
but a handful of Mc cartridges that Harry Pearson
gushed about back in the day,he felt the
manufacturer got them right. I have owned and
used the 2000 and it is a fantastic cartridge
mates well with the ET arm too. I still have
them,one needs to be retired and the other lost
its stylus during the Northridge earthguake.I
sent that one off and had the body cryoed and
will eventually have it rebuilt.
As one poster stated make sure your phone stage
can handle the low .2 gain and make sure it HAS
NOT BEEN RE TIPPED.
I agree with Qdrone's comments. The 2000 is the one to find; fantastic cartridge. Mine needs to be retipped after years of service on a ET2. But, you asked about the Alpha 2 which I owned years ago before owning the 2000 along with, among many others, the AT OC9. I have to respectfully disagree with Bpoletti. In my system and for my tastes, the Alpha 2 was an infinitely better cartridge than the OC9. In fairness, my OC9 was not the /II. My Alpha 2, which definitely sounds in character like a relative of the 2000, was more detailed, had better bass extension and had much more stable imaging than the OC9 which always sounded more hi-fi'ish to me in spite of the Alpha's top end that could sound, as Qdrone points out, a little zippy if not set up properly. The OC9 was arguably "smoother" sounding but had an overall bright glaze to the sound that I found annoying. My OC9 had larger images than the Alpha 2 which could make it sound "fuller", but did not reach as deep in the bass. IMO, the AT was a good solid mid-level cartridge; the Alpha 2 was a true high-end cartridge with a couple of flaws that could be improved on with careful set up and that were obvious in part because it did other things so well. Not a 2000 'though.