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.
|
Again, if you use MC 2000 at 2.2 grams or more, you’ll probably destroy the suspension. The recommended tracking force for MC 2000 is 1.5 grams.
|
I agree with the general rule that Japan is the best place to look for cartridges made in Japan, but Ortofon might be an exception. Their products are and always have been very popular in Japan and they sold many there, especially SPU’s.
Most has already been said about MC2000. My sample came from the personal collection of a UK importer and was very sparingly used. So not NOS, but pretty close. I was apprehensive about the ridiculously low output, but in practice I can make it work without a hint of noise on both an Ortofon T3000 SUT and Boulder 1008 phono amp, both with total line level gain of 70dB. The sound is a benchmark of neutrality and it’s probably the best tracker I have in house.
The high compliance is probably the main reason the MC2000 sounds so good (and tracks so well) and generally considered quite a challenge in terms of tonearm synergy. Again I had my doubts, because my system and tonearms are tailored to low output, low impedance AND low compliance cartridges. But again in practice it turned out easy to work with. In a lightweight headshell it even works spendidly in a heavy gun like FR64S with the lighter W170 counterweight. For the record, the lightweight original MC2000 headshell was in silver and made of magnesium, but these didn’t survive the times very well. My sample and all others I’ve seen have what I’d call ’bleeding’, a kind of disintegrating of the material, including the threads that are supposed to hold the cartridge. Mine is useless, but I found a later black version of this headshell (also on chakster’s photo) that works perfectly.
The MC7500 was the first ever cartridge with titanium body and has 0,13mV output from 8N copper coils (unique as far as I know) and again a tapered aluminum cantilever with Ortoline stylus (not the Replicant 100, as in MC3000 and MC5000). And if you think the packaging of the MC2000 is lavish, think again and compare it with the leather handbag that came with MC7500. Even my wife, who normally doesn’t give a ’.....’ about my audio hobby, was impressed!
Although more congenial in terms of specs, the MC7500 is actually much more difficult to get right. You’ll need a headshell with azimuth adjustment (preferably the dedicated LH7500). The reason is very likely to be the stylus profile, which is unique (4x100 um instead of 5x100um of Replicant 100). But when you do get it right, I would rank it ever so slightly over the MC2000. It has the same kind of neutrality, but with a bit more detail (the stylus profile?) and a bit more slam (copper coils instead of silver coils?). Both are very special cartridges that can still compete head on with A90, A95 or even MC Anna.
|
Dear lewm, the MC7500 has a tendency to sound a little edgy or bright in the wrong set up. I think this has mostly to do with that Ortoline stylus profile. So spot on azimuth and SRA are crucial, but I assume you have that covered.
It took some time to find it, but the LH 7500 headshell made a very positive contribution and so did the LW-1000S leadwires. You would think 7N copper would be the best match to the 8N copper coils (8N copper lead wires are not offered by Ortofon or anyone else I think), but these silver wires contribute to a neutral balance comparable to MC2000.
It sounds very good in FR64S (all my cartridges do, even the high compliance MC2000), but even better in Audiocraft AC-4400. And perhaps contrary to what one might expect, it likes the phono amp (at 500 ohm loading) better than the Ortofon T3000, which is basically the same as the dedicated T7500. Hope that helps.
|
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.
|
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.
|
@neonknight
You are correct about Mutech. The RM-Kanda has the same body as Transfiguration Orpheus. Both brands aim for a combination of highest possible output and lowest possible impedance and seem to share some design principles as well. Coincidentally, both share the same stylus protector as My Sonic Lab, further evidence of these 'tight' relationships....
With the original MC2000 Ortofon boldly aimed at the state of the art in analog music reproduction, just when 'perfect sound forever' was taking over the music industry. They definitely succeeded, but it was considered too impractical in use due to its peculiar combination of extreme low output and extreme high compliance in a rather big and heavy aluminum body.
One could argue that the subsequent '000' series was an attempt to bring that performance plateau to a more managable package of less extreme and less contradictory specs. In my opinion they didn't quite succeed with MC2000mk2, MC3000(mk2) and MC5000, but of course they're still very good systems. I have little doubt you will be able to enjoy MC3000mk2.
In my opinion Ortofon did reach the MC2000's level of neutrality and refinement with the 75th Anniversary MC7500. Which of the two is preferable might be system dependent, but it's a close (personal) call.
@lewm your opposite preference made me listen to both systems again in various set ups. As I like both cartridges best with classical music, I picked a record that brings out the dynamic power of the orchestra extremely well: Prokofiev's Symphony no. 6 by Walter Weller and the LPO on Decca SXL 6777. One of those great Kingsway Hall recordings by Kenneth Wilkinson.
You're absolutely correct about one thing: there was not the slightest hint of the edginess I mentioned before, so memory was playing tricks on me. Perhaps that memory was the result of playing too many US Columbia pressings that give every cartridge (more than) a hint of edginess.
Playing this Decca recording the MC7500 sounds almost too polite through the T3000, but it dynamically 'wakes up' through the Boulder phono amp and that is the 'winning' combination here. With the MC2000 it's exactly the other way around, with more power and bass slam through the T3000. I'm completely at a loss to explain......
|
The MC30 was Ortofon's highest achievement before the arrival of MC2000, introducing some important innovations as mentioned by Raul. It was a real statement product that initially came in a luxury leather attaché case, complete with test record. In the Ortofon 100th Anniversary book it is mentioned that the MC20 which preceeded the MC30 was (co)designed by a young Japanese designer. The story goes that this individual was none other than Nakatsuka San, later of ZYX fame. Small world indeed!
The original MC30 was also a very low output device at 0.1mV (my sample is even lower at 0,09mV) and was probably as difficult to operate in the 70's as the MC2000 was in the 80's. All subsequent versions of MC30 (mk2, Super, Supreme) had higher output to make it more managable, just like subsequent models in the '000' series, but none sounded as good as the original version.
To my ears the original MC30, original MC2000 and MC7500 were the best Ortofon cartridges of the 20th century, until in this century new owners started a new phase of ultra high end designs with models like MC Anna and the A90 and A95 Anniversary models. These are extremily good systems, but their sonic priorities are more geared towards maximum information retrieval, consistent with what high end audio is all about these days.
|
Raul, it’s true that Ortofon always had a somewhat mundane reputation, at least here in the West. The book released for their 100th Anniversary describes in detail their professional heritage and they did their business accordingly. No brand mystique or fancy marketing tactics. Their record cutting lathes were equal if not superior to the Neumann lathes, but didn’t sell as well mostly resulting from licensing agreements and other business reasons. Their tonearms and SPU cartridges were also broadcasting industry standards, in direct competition with EMT. Again the EMT products were generally more succesful, perhaps because Ortofon never produced a dedicated turntable.
In the 70’s they became a household name for low priced MM cartridges, competing with companies like Grado. In the 80’s when digital took over, they managed to be very succesful in the DJ crowd. This market position probably didn’t sit well with a high end reputation, even when such products were just as much part of their portfolio (like the ’000’ series discussed here). The new management made the decision to put more emphasis on the expensive high end products, which has changed the reputation amongst audiophiles. It has to be said that the situation in Japan was very different, where they had always been one of the most highly regarded European brands, especially for the SPU cartridges.
|
Ortofon offers an interesting comparison to answer ’to have a body or not, that’s the question’: the A95 versus MC Anna. A95 has a titanium skeleton, while Anna has a voluptuous titanium body of more than twice the weight. Both (no)bodies were made with additive manufacturing technology (3D laser printing), both have the same boron cantilever and Replicant 100 stylus and they share several other design principles. The only significant other difference is that Anna has a non magnetic armature.
To what extend ’body versus no body’ is the main reason is open to debate, but the way they present music couldn’t be more different. The A95 is all about neutrality and speed, definitely belonging to the ’maximum information retrieval’ school. Anna seems more intent on creating tonal beauty above all else. More ’old school’ in a way that resembles their own SPU sound, albeit on a much higher level of refinement. It also reminds me of the Miyabi’s. Perhaps it’s a deliberate attempt on Ortofon’s part to reconcile the two ’schools’, to ’have their cake and eat it’. Whatever was the design brief, it makes for spellbinding listening.
|
@neonknight a word of caution about that ’for the fun of it’ attitude, as this has a tendency to get out of control. I’ve got over 40 now and have been telling myself at least 20 times this will be the final one. Of course it’s ridiculous, as my wife keeps reminding me. In my defense I try to point out that a cartridge collection is perhaps not more silly than having a shoe collection. Luckily she can take a joke.
Raul is right about the ’ceramic’ body of the Ortofon. On my MC5000 one of those protruberances on the side has broken off like a piece of porcelain. The cartridge came to me that way, so I don't know how much force had caused it, but it's fragile. It's one of the reasons I got it very cheap, the other having been retipped with Namiki sapphire cantilever. I still use it as my 'go too' cartridge, but I bought it just to find out if these '000' models were really that good and if my system could handle the low output. The answer to both questions was 'yes', which started the search for MC2000 and MC7500. So have fun! |
@neonknight the manual of MC5000 says it uses the unique aluminium oxide housing material originally introduced in MC3000. It continues: "Aluminium oxide can be formed into a ceramic substance by sintering at a temperature of 1600 Celsius to become as hard as porcelain. The articularly hard properties of the material may be better understood when you consider that on the Moh scale, diamond has a hardness factor of 10. On the same scale, aluminium oxide, ruby and sapphire have a hardness factor of almost 9". The idea is that any resonances appear at frequencies far above the audible range.
|
@neonknight playing around with SUT's can be a worthwhile endeavour as an alternative to an active phono amp. In my experience there's no way to predict if a given cartridge will 'like' the phono stage or SUT better, so it's fun every time you 'hit' a synergy, not unlike hitting on the right tonearm/cartridge combination.
That said, I can wholeheartedly recommend the Ortofon SUT's that were built for the '000' series: T-2000, T-3000, T-5000 and T-7500. They were not exactly cheap, but they do have silver wiring and we all know what new SUT's with silver wiring cost these days. Ebay prices are over the top, but I managed to find my T-3000 on Yahoo auction for a little under $1000.
With the exception of the T-2000 they all offer 30dB of gain with a 3-6 ohm impedance range, so suitable for most LOMC's. The T-2000 has 35dB gain to accommodate the extremily low output MC-2000, but that cartridge works great with the T-3000 as well. Its impedance range is fairly flexible too, so even your Proteus with 1 ohm impedance will sound great. And of course the synergy with your MC-3000mk2 is a given. Certainly worth a try!
|
