Classic Ortofon Cartridges: The MC2000 MK II or the MC3000 MK II?
This thread was initiated about a year ago, and so it is not an old thread by audiogon standards. You can easily find threads that are 20 years old here. Anyway, to be clear, which cartridge do you have? It sounds like you have an MC 3000. Is that correct? I am interested to hear from the person who started this thread a year ago. He was about to take possession of an MC 5000. I would like to know how it compares to his other Ortofon MCX000 cartridges. |
Have just checked this thread after some time (years probably) and surprisingly found it still alive. Interesting, it is mostly about 2000 (and 3000mk2, 5-7500) and so less on just 3000, is it because it is rare (I've been told once that it was made in just about 200 pcs?), or for what reason, I do not know. Well, I have one for about 10 years, purchased from a friend of mine NOS/NIB, with all the original packaging (wooden 'trunk'' with straw, Ortofon crowbar :), Replicant display case, etc). Cannot compare to other x000 carts because have had no one to, but it is definitely the best MC I have ever heard, and I heard quite some vintage and new Denons (103, 300, 301), Ortofons )Kontrapunk, Cadenza.mc30, sl20), AT's (interesting btw, between ART, 09, I like 07 the most), and also some other not in my system. (Dynavectors, zyx, etc). What I can say, well I totally agree with that old Stereophile review, especially on bass performance, a truly terrific power and control in that scope, but also very detailed mid range and a smooth highs (maybe someone would describe as somehow rolled off, I don't know, 10 years ago my ears were younger, so it was not really the issue). In brief, very, very relaxed sound with a large, meaty stage, absolutely free of any kind of constraint, fatigue or similar nervousness. Of course, a very good phono pre is desirable (luckily I have a very good solid state dual mono with about 70db gain set at 60 Ohm load, but I have a feeling that even less gain would be just fine). Recently, in the past couple of years, I moved my attention to the very fine MM carts (i.e. Denon dl109d, Elac hsp796, at15xe, AT20ss, ADC25, Technics EPC205clii, EPC22, B&O mmc2 to name just some of them), and btw following some recommendations found here on AG (thanks!), so this old masterpiece is just exhibiting in its acrylic display aside of one of my TT's. Cart was lightly used thru years, but unfortunately last time I have given it a listen, I miscarried the tonearm and missed the record brink (so realized :D that time has come to switch to a full auto TT's). The cantilever (of some carbon fiber+ ? mixture) is now just slightly indented on its inner side, but as I can tell, it has absolutely no impact on sound, tracking, plays exactly the same as before. Well, since I am (sadly) a perfectionist, I would eventually pass it over to somebody not so meticulous like me :) to enjoy it to its last days. Not really an advertisement or a mandatory sale (no idea on market value), maybe also some exchange possible...whatever. And yes, it's in Europe, so no Japan humidity :) issue. |
I have my doubts it’s either of that. The marks on the silver portion of the body could be dust. But what is on the panel behind the cantilever looks too close to corrosion for me to chance the purchase.
This is the image of the MC5000 I am buying. This can be seen as dust on the cartridge body and the metal plate for the stylus, which looks significantly different than what is on the MC2000
|
@rauliruegas I have not listened to it yet, it is bought and being shipped from the UK. I like the MC3000 MK II, and my understanding is this is the same cartridge with gemstone cantilever. Past experiences have shown I like ruby and sapphire cantilevered cartridges as a whole, so there is a good chance I like this one, especially for a casual use cartridge. I do not expect it to surpass my better cartridges, but for $900 I should get a lot of hours of enjoyment out of it. |
@lewm As an example. This MC2000 looks fine till you get to the last image. The close up shows pitting. I have been to Japan twice and the shops are nice, but I am not flying over to make the purchase of a cartridge. I am kind of dependent on the online international selling sites. I also try to avoid gear from costal sites, as you can often aww signs of oxidation.
|
Dear @neonknight : I 'm surprised that you like it the 5000 that's of all ooo series is the worst one but your system and priorities are diferent from mine and could be that you want to have all those Ortofon series. The 7500 is better but not exiting/emotional.
R. |
Where do you see lots of cartridges with pitting and oxidation in Japan? Have you been there, and have you toured the various audio stores where used gear is sold? I’m just wondering. In my experience really good quality used audio equipment has generally been very well cared for by Japanese owners. Much of the stuff looks like new. I have seen some equipment on HIFIDO that does look the worse for wear, but my personal experience touring in Tokyo is quite the opposite. Anyway, buying any used cartridge is a crapshoot for sure. You’d like to know who owned it and what kind of person he or she was. Also, although the big cities like Tokyo do get very humid in summer, air conditioning is common everywhere you go. So I don’t know why one would expect cartridges to be rusting out, any more then you’d expect in Miami for example. |
@lewm Well perhaps the Gods of Analog will bless me with their favor and a MC7500 in good condition will become available. I certainly will buy one. On Ebay the Japanese one is about $2300 or $2500 and hours are unknown. So I would plan for a trip to Expert Stylus right away, and by the time taxes are levied I am sure it would be a $3K purchase. With Japan being such a humid climate, I have seen lots of cartridges show pitting and other oxidation that is irreversible, so I tend to shy from buying expensive cartridges from there. I would much prefer the MC7500 to come from Europe. Maybe one day I will get lucky. |
Thought I would add to this post. Still have the MC3000 MK II here, and use it on a Dynavector DV505 tone arm and Scheu Das Laufwerk No2 table. I also have acquired a MC2000 with T2000 transformer. Expert Stylus refurbished the cartridge and fitted it with their diamond. Still retains stock cantilever, and it is as close as you are going to get to a factory MC2000 at this day and age. It is mounted on a second DV505 arm on the same Scheu table and has a light Supex headshell.
First of all I absolutely love the MC2000, it is as fine a cartridge as I have heard. I might even like it more than my Transfiguration Proteus, even though they are close in overall performance. I use the MC3000 MK II as a casual cartridge, and am going to send it to Expert when this stylus is no longer viable. I have my reservations about who retipped this, and while it performs fine I would be happier if Mr Hodgson worked on it and gave it a bill of health. This cartridge is not as detailed, a bit more relaxed sounding, but has nice tonal balance. Not as dynamically insightful but still very good. An enjoyable cartridge that meets my needs. I did complete a purchase of a MC5000 that is a Treasure Trove rebuild. Coming from a UK dealer that bought it for personal use and logged less than 100 hours. I am looking forward to it as the gemstone cantilever might provide a bit more sparkle than the MC3000 MK II, and therefore be an excellent alternative once the other cartridge is out of hours. The price was reasonable, so I thought it was worth the effort. I seem to have a liking for these MC0000 series of cartridges. The MC2000 is one of my favorite. Perhaps a MC7500 can be found, but the current version on Ebay is quite expensive with unknown hours. Too rich for me to gamble on. But perhaps one day I will find one. But until then I can be very content with the MC2000. It is a remarkable piece of engineering. |
Raul and Edgeware you are correct and I was wrong in stating that 2.2g to 2.7g was the range of VTF for the MC2000. I was reading a table for the MC2000mkII when I got the info believing it to be for the MC2000. It seemed incorrect to me too, and I just double checked my source and found my error, only to get on line here and find that you’d already corrected me. Thanks for that. I’ve been tracking the MC2000 at 1.6g anyway. The MC2000 is also much higher in compliance than the MC7500, which also jibes with my memory. Whereas the MC2000mkII is about the same as the MC7500 in compliance. |
Dear @lewm : You must follow the cartridge manufacturer advise on VTF and any opther set up parameter.
The higher VTF range in Ortofon cartridges vs other cartridge models is nothing to worried about because Ortofon knows what it does and everything is prefectly calculated for.
2.2grs. is out of question for the MC 2000. @edgewear is rigth on that.
R. |
Good points, Raul. Any thoughts on the surprisingly high recommended VTF (2.2-2.7g), for both cartridges? My old MC7500 is tracking just fine at about 2.2g. Before I finally looked up the recommended VTF, I set it at 1.6g, just based on my faulty memory, and it actually did fine at that VTF, too. I do think it's a bit better at 2.2g. |
Dear @lewm : My take in the MC 2000 issue is that was not through STPH JGH review who puts that cartridge in the market map but was the 1984 Audio review by B.Pisha because this magazine had higher circulation that STP.
In reality the cartridge had succes not in the " high-end " niche but out side it.
In those old times the MC 2000 was the more expensive cartridge down there: 2K because needs the T2000 and was a new road to Ortofon when its top of the line was a really good performer the MC30 that had a price of 600 plus the T30 SUT,
I was fortunated to bougth it at very special price directly to Ortofon because in those times was not an Ortofon distributor in my county México and from Ortofon I bougth the MC3000, MC3000MK2, MC5000, etc.
In reality Ortofon was out of the high-end market because its great cartridges were not reviewed by the high-end magazines. Your 7500 is a good example: no one cares about Ortofon was in the mid-fi market and was magazines as Audio who really help to some high-end audiophiles experienced with.
You are an example of what I'm saying here: you know about the MC2000 or the 7500 here at Agon several years after those cartridges appeared in the market. In the Asia market audiophiles had and have in very good place Ortofon through the SPU models and today new catalog.
Reviewers turn around their faces to Ortofon with the Jubilee and latter on the A90 and its today sucess came with the Anna.
R. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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 Dover, "Forever"? Really?Yes - check your American-English Merriam-Webster dictionary, its an adverb, see defnition number 2 forever adverbfor·ev·er | \ fə-ˈre-vər , fȯ-; Southern often fə-ˈe-və \Definition of forever |
Dearn @neonknight : "" It may very well be possible that there are a level of differences that my system is not up to the task of presenting. "" Overall you own very good system. Your main cartridges are really good but I don’t know if are mated with the " rigth " tonearm. I owned the 505 not my cup of tea, I owned the 5 that’s is better tonearm. I had experiences with the SOTA TTs that are very good units but not with your other 2 TTs. Maybe you could be rigth in your statement and maybe you can get higher resolution with some changes or fine tunnig in your analog rig. In the other side your speakers woofer crossover is at 750 hz so in theory that driver is running with frequencies around 28hz-30hz to maybe 850hz-900hz, this is a wide range and the developed IMD is high and does not permits better resolution/definition on the critical reproduced frequencies in that range. I don’t know if you use your subs as a reinforcing/go deep bass or if you are using its high pass filter to liberate the speakers of bass frequencies to lower the IMD and in this way achieve a better resolution/definition where it matters the most. This is that the subs handle frequencies from around 90hz and below it and the 4365 from 90hz and up. Doing this is critical for room/system higher overall quality performance levels. R. |
@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! |
Yikes, I didn't think body materials would lead to such a lively discussion. Given the hardness of the body used on the MC3000 MK II, which the Stereophile review says almost 9 on the Moh Scale of Hardness, while that scale shows titanium being 6. Apparently hardness is only part of the equation for resonance issues that are considered in body design. Nevertheless, all I was really trying to say is that this is a nice sounding cartridge. In the past I have had the Cadenza Red, Blue, Bronze, original Windfeld, and A90 in my systems. While each of these cartridges had a different presentation, I would say I find this Ortofon to be very close to being on equal footing. With the possible exception of the A90, but that cartridge has a unique presentation and kind of stands apart from other Ortofon cartridges. It may very well be possible that there are a level of differences that my system is not up to the task of presenting. Actually I find the tables I use to have very similar presentations, and this may be an end result of colorations further down the equipment chain. So lets talk about the system Speakers JBL 4365 and pair of Velodyne HGS 12 subwoofers Amplifier AVM Audio AMP Essential monoblocks Pre-Amplifier Halcro DM 8 Phono Stage Esoteric E-03 Speaker wire Wireworld Eclipse 8 Interconnects Wireworld Silver Eclipse 8 Power cords Pi Audio Group Power Conditioner TLP Audio TF130 (previous one was a PS Audio P10) Turntables Scheu Audio Das Laufwerk No2/Dynavector DV505/Ortofon MC 3000 II or Ikeda 9 Kawami Well Tempered Reference/ZYX 4D SOTA Cosmos Eclipse/SME V/Transfiguration Audio Proteus There are differences in presentation to all three tables, but there are many many similarities. The SOTA is the most expansive and dynamic, while the WTR is a bit more rounded and relaxed, and the Scheu falls closer to the WTR tonally but a bit more defined and dynamic. Perhaps there are limitations in my gear that homogenize the sound. Perhaps one day I get tired of playing with tables and consolidate them into one top tier table I can afford and call it good. Use the digital rig for casual listening and simplify things with one table and a pair of cartridges. Maybe that happens one day, but probably not next week. I think the next step is to obtain a different SUT than the ones I have had and see what happens. To be honest this is a casual cartridge, so I don't want to spend multiple thousands on a SUT for a cartridge that cost me $900. But on the other hand, I don't want to kludge the whole thing together either. Perhaps I will look at vintage transformers and see what can be done that way. |
@lewm If you and Raul believe that an aluminum oxide by itself can qualify as a ceramic after appropriate processing, ok. Thats not what I said. Nowhere did I say "after appropriate processing". I dont know why, but you are forever rephrasing other folks posts, including misrepresenting what they have said. Let me spell it out for you Aluminium Oxide is a ceramic oxide. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/materials-science/aluminum-oxide |
Al2O3 - https://global.kyocera.com/prdct/fc/list/material/alumina/alumina.html In laboratories and high tech it's used very often. |
My first enigma was the so called ''Greek lier paradox'', The Greek who stated that ''all Greek are liers''. The other was how Greek succeeded to convince ''Slavic immigants'' on the Balkan to believe in ONLY ONE GOD while they were polytheisic originaly? There are many theories about this ''issue''. However nobody try ''economic kind''. Consider the case with 12 Gods but with only 10 goats. Back than the ''integrity issue'' deed not exist. So trying to ''corrupt'' Gods was not an issue. But well with the problem how to please 12 of them with only 10 goats? Probaly because man are regarded as more valuable ''working force'' the daughters were ''logicaly'' considered to be less ,uh, valuable. So ''ONLY two of those'' were needed to please all 12 Gods. Well the Greek deed not need more arguments then that ONE GOD is much cheaper. |
When reading the latest reveals by Ortofon on their Cadenza Range of MC's they are more interested in informing on the advancements in selected for Materials use in the assembly within the Housing . They do not focus in on any special properties about the Cantilevers in use, but do reference the Aluminium Cantilevers in use. The Bronze Model is identified as having a Conical Aluminium where as the others in the range are Aluminium. Again the conical shape could be used, as it has proved to impact on the Sound Produced and separates the Bronze allowing it to be noticeably different to the Siblings. It might just be a better material to mount the Replicant Stylus onto. I am not sure how many of the contributors to this thread will be in a position to debate the metallurgy of the Ortofon Cadenza Range of cantilevers 35 Years on from now . |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Dear @rossb : I owned too the Jubilee and been a very good quality performer its overall " presentation " is different from the Windfeld model due that are way different kind of overall designs. As with any cartridge it's not easy to compare to other cartridges because we can't be totally sure that this or that cartridge mates the better with the tonearm. We could have a good idea of their performance levels and from thoser kind of comparisons we have to be sure that the alignment and overall set up of each cartridge is accurated for both samples and that the SPL for the comparison sessions be the same. Good that you own all those Ortofon cartridges. Enjoy it. R. |
In terms of advanced technology, the Jubilee was the next generation. New Body Shape, WRD was possibly with changed materials to suit the new cantilever, Silver Wire on the Coils, Boron Cantilever with Shibata Stylus. The Kontrapunkt Range was most likely produced using loaned technologies from this design, but veered in the design with the use of the Cantilever and Stylus assemblies. This range never received the WRD Technology, but was produced with the early versions of the FSE Technology. Literature uses references to the Jubilee as comparisons in the delivery. The Ortofon Vienna was an added design to fit in with a certain market demand, it also has the Jubilee Technology on board with a changed WRD to produce more Bass and the FSE was incorporated. It was almost the base model for the Windfeld to be built from. The Windfeld was the next generation in advancement to the Jubilee and Kontrapunkt Range. The Cadenza Range was produced loaning the updates in Technologies used on the Windfeld. The Ortofon 0000's Range used early WRD Technology, Copper Wire for the Coils, Aluminium Cantilevers and Replicant and FG Stylus. There was a noticeable mass to the bodies. I would feel there would be a noticeable richness to the presentation of this type of design. |
It’s always a subjective judgment to say who got enough credit for what, but if I recall the original Gordon Holt review of the MC2000 and the T2000, in Stereophile, he was blown away, despite his misgivings about its high compliance and very low output. And back then Holt was “the man” so far as high end audio reviews were concerned, at least as influential as MF is today. I believe he put the MC2000 at the top of the heap. Of course, HP shared the top status with JGH. I don’t recall reading his review. |
Do you know what kind of alloy they are using for the cantilever? No the user manual does not explain it or at least I was unable to identify the composition; explains the body, the stylus, the suspension, other details but not the details of the cantilever. I will try to browse the magazines of the time with the review. |
@best-groove Ah thank you so much. Yes it certainly is informative reading, and provides a good deal of insight. It is my thought that Ortofon always seems to make level headed design choices that are aimed at the performance of the cartridge rather than the mystique and aesthetics of it. As I go through various albums I have to wonder about later generation Ortofon cartridges. I have owned an A90, and to be honest I am not sure I would choose it over this cartridge. If anything, the MC3000 II seems a bit more balanced and even keeled in terms of tonal balance and its ability to express fine detail. I do have my eyes peeled for a MC7500, I will obtain one some day. Do you know what kind of alloy they are using for the cantilever? It has a matt finish and even a touch of grey to its color. I also understand it is tapered, and I wonder what they have done to this cantilever to improve its performance over a standard aluminum one. Unfortunately no reviews I have found address this, and Ortofon only refers to the cantilever as aluminum. It would be good to know any more info about this, if its out there. Once again, thanks so much for making the effort and taking the time to create that post. It is greatly appreciated. |
Dear @neonknight : Thank's to your thread yesterday I was looking for Ortofon 000 manuals or something that can help on information and I found out one box of 2000 and one big box of the 5000 and this one with only the Ortofon usual VTF tool and that finding makes me to remember this: due that no Ortofon distributor in my country they decided to sale for me directly and that's what I did it with my MC 2000's and latter on I look for the MC 3000 and bougth it from Ortofon. Been accustomed to the 2000 the 3000 disapointed a little and when I changed ( time latter. ) from a headshell by accident I put so many torque in the crews that that ceramic just broken. Ortofon was so kidness that with out charge other than both ways shipping offered to me the MC5000 that latter on I sold and I can't remember why I still have the original double box. Now, the 5000 was a good performer but I prefered the 2000, specially the one with boron cantilever. After that I bougth a second hand ( low hours ) 3000 MK2 that I like it more. There is no doubt that the 3000/5000 where builded with ceramic not what the Ortofon link said it. Here two links that talks what is that ceramic: https://www.stereophile.com/phonocartridges/188ortofon/index.html http://korfaudio.com/hs-a01 Btw, I owned SAEC and Victor/JVC ceramic headshells: SAEC white color and JVC in near black. Look for the 7500 and not so much for the 5000. Only an opinion. R. |
From what I read somewhere the MC3000 MK II uses the same body as the original MC300, so I went back to that review to gather some construction info. That info tracks what the owners manual says. "The magnet material was changed to a more powerful material called neodymium (it used to be an alloy of samarium and cobalt) and moved closer to the coils, which doubled the cartridge's output. And because the stronger magnetic field might have an adverse effect on motions of the original aluminum armature (footnote 1), the 3000's armature is made of carbon fiber. Even the outer casing material was changed, from aluminum to aluminum oxide. This sintered (fired) ceramic compound has a hardness of 9 Mohs, 1 unit below that of a diamond's 10. The harder a material, the higher its natural resonating frequency; the new case is an attempt to get this out beyond the audible range without having to resort to a diamond case." So aluminum oxide is really hard stuff. They also make cantilevers out of it also as I recall. Very interesting stuff, thanks so much for sharing your knowledge. |
@edgewear Ah very enlightening! I wonder what they mean by "ceramic substance" and perhaps that phrase has given rise to the thought it was a ceramic body. I wonder if there are really any practical and real world improvements to the SLM technique that Ortofon is using on their current top tier cartridges. The MC7500 shows that body built from titanium also. If so, I wonder if a system at my level of quality is able to fully portray those improvements. Funny how these things occur. I recently saw a MC5000 from a UK dealer who obtained it from Ortofon Treasure Trove, and has 50 hours. I am seriously thinking about inquiring and see if they will sell to a buyer in the US. In the past I have had the Cadenza Blue, and appreciated that cartridge along with other cartridges that have sported gemstone cantilevers. The 5000 is fitted with sapphire as I read it, but otherwise is the same as the 3000 MK II. Worth considering... |
