Looking For A Dialogue Around Using An Ortofon MC2000 In My Current System
As a bit of history, I used to work in a stereo store part time as a college student. This store was an Ortofon dealer and the owner was a fan of the MC2000, and we typically had one in the store. I was too poor to afford it, but it was always on my want list. Last week I came across an MC2000 on an audio site and bought it. This one is as close to a time capsule as we can get for vintage MC cartridges. While not NOS its in perfect shape with Ortofon outer box, Styrofoam, intter box, all the tools, the graphs, two stylus guards, and even an Ortofon stick pin I presume for you to wear to audio shows to signify you are an MC2000 owner. The stock and irreplaceable cantilever is there and its straight, and rides high. Of course the unknown is diamond wear, and so I am planning to send it out for evaluation and consideration for diamond replacement.
Now the question becomes how to use it. First comes a suitable arm. I have two Dynavector DV505 for a Scheu Das Laufwerk No2 turntable that I can use, and also a Supex SL4 headshell that weighs 5.5 grams or so. I have the stock headshell that comes with the MC2000, but that looks to weigh 10 grams, and this cartridge is highly compliant. I also have a SME V that is spec'd between 10 and 11 grams. I almost consider the SME to be the best match for this application, but then that regulated the number of hours I might use that table as the MC2000 isn't going to be a daily driver cartridge.
Next question is how to get enough gain for it. The owner apparently has the T2000, but is unwilling to part with it at this time. So ideally I would like to find a T2000. I also have an MC3000, and so need the step up for it, and I happen to also have a MC200u. My Esoteric E-03 has 40 db of gain on MM mode, and I have a Graham Slee Accession that is 41.5 dB of gain. The Esoteric is 66 dB in MC mode. So until I locate a T2000 I wondered what options I have. Jensen makes a high output SUT that is 31 dB of gain and seems to be the best choice. I do not see any active pre-pre amps that can do the job. Any thoughts here?
As a crazy thought, the Accession has a direct mode that bypasses all RIAA equalization, so its really a pre pre amp then. But placing the Esoteric ahead of it means you are looking at a gain structure of over 80 dB. Probably not a good idea, but I wonder if it could work. Just brainstorming here. Of course the perfect solution is to find a T2000, or even in a pinch a T3000 for the interim till I do locate a T2000. Problem is these SUT have collectors value and they seem to go for silly money these days. But that is what it is, and you have to pay the piper.
So any thoughts on the best way to get this MC2000 integrated into the system?
The MC2000 is generally considered a difficult customer to satisfy, due to its unusual combination of extremily low output level and very high compliance. However, in my experience the output level is more problematic to deal with than the compliance. A total gain of 66dB is probably too low and you will likely experience some level of hum or hiss. You should aim for at least 70dB, so with a 30dB SUT you’ll be fine, provided the phono stage and SUT are both of very high quality. So there’s no need to hunt down the rare 35dB T-2000. I use the MC2000 with the 30dB T-3000 for a total of 70dB gain without the slightest noise. The ‘000’ SUT series are expensive because they are silver wired, but still bargains compared to what silver wired SUT’s cost new these days.
As for compliance, it works splendidly with a heavy gun like FR-64S, but equally fine with several medium effective mass tonearms I operate. No experience with the Dyna or the SME, but I suspect they will both work just fine with MC2000.
Good luck with your purchase, if you get it right you’re in for a real treat.
I have already suggested that you contact Intact Audio. Another source for a proper transformer would be Jensen in California. They may be able to custom build you a SUT with a high enough turns ratio to accommodate your MC2000. (Or maybe they even make one already; check their website.) As I mentioned to you, I am using mine in a Dynavector DV505, with a lightweight CF headshell. Results are satisfactory, but I don’t know if they are optimal as I have not tried other lightweight tonearms. Gordon Holt in his original review back when pointed out that the weight of the cartridge itself, combined with its high compliance, meant that you optimally need a 5g tonearm for best resonant frequency. Not too many tonearms fulfill that strict criterion, maybe an Infinity Black Widow or one of the lightweight ADC tonearms. The theoretical problem with the DV505 is that although the vertical effective mass is at least in the right ballpark, with a light headshell, its horizontal effective mass is much higher, somewhat like a typical SL tonearm. Anyway, your MC2000 will certainly "work" in the DV505 for the time being at least.
By the way, the MC2000 is also a good candidate for a current-driven phono stage, which might not cost much more than a custom SUT. Curent equals voltage divided by resistance. .05mV/2 ohms = .025mA. Some other LOMC cartridges commonly used with current drive don't make as much current as the MC2000. You still need lots of gain, though.
Yes there was a brief mention of Intact and that you do use a DV505 with the MC2000. I started this thread to have a bit more in depth conversation than we had and get different perspectives to see what is possible.
With the Supex headshell the vertical mass of the DV505 will be fine. I wonder about the horizontal mass, and I do admit to being concerned about the long term effects and if a cantilever can end up being skewed because of the higher mass.
The SME V at 10 grams should keep resonance within bounds, its going to be low but should be usable. Ideally a carbon fiber black widow would work, but most of these low mass arms are intended for high compliance cartridges...that do not have a body that weighs 11 grams. So how to get enough counterweight to balance it to 1 gram tracking weight is a challenge.
Jensen does make a transformer that provides 30 dB of gain, its a custom order. The question becomes how well shielded it is. That I cannot find info out on. The vintage transformers seem to have become fetish items, and its hard to find a T X000 series transformer at this time. I do see a T5000 for somewhat sane money, and since the MC5000 is essentially a MC3000 with different cantilever the SUT should be the same. Of course in a perfect world I find a T2000 for this cartridge and a T3000 for my MC3000.
The reading from the original review shows that active step ups like the Klyne were unable to achieve a low enough noise floor to work well with the MC2000. And there seems to be no modern active pre pre amps available at this time that can do 30dB of gain. So this does not seem to be an avenue that can be pursued.
One last transformer that looks to be an option is the Hashimoto, as the H-3 can be configured for 30 dB of gain.
Neon, Several points. (1) Jensen are pros. They understand transformers and how to build them. If you have any misgivings about shielding, ask them. I doubt you would have a problem. Same goes for Dave Slagle (Intact Audio). (2) The REASON that Gordon Holt suggested using a tonearm with 5g effective mass, if that were possible, with the MC2000 is BECAUSE of its 11g weight. In other words, if you add 5g to 11g, for an effective mass of 16g, the calculated resonant frequency probably falls into a range Holt found to be acceptable. (I haven't done a calculation, but I assume Mr Holt knew what he was talking about.) The very light tonearm is advisable because the cartridge has both high compliance and high mass in and of itself. But I don't think even GH used such a light tonearm when he auditioned the MC2000 and subsequently declared it to be the best sounding cartridge he had ever heard up to that point. (3) I would have to disagree with you on the idea that there are no active gain devices that are quiet enough to work with the MC2000, in conjunction with an MM phono stage. I am in fact using one that Intact Audio built for me; it's dead silent. I have two other high gain phono stages that are certainly quiet enough, but they don't have quite enough gain to make me happy. The MC2000 sounds a bit anemic with those two. I do not own a SUT; nor have I ever owned one.
Dave knows more about it than I. It’s solid state with an external power supply. I just plugged it in between the MC2000 and my Manley Steelhead MM inputs with gain set at either 50 or 55 db. There was an attempt at current drive but the input Z, while low, is not quite low enough for true current drive owing to the very low internal resistance of the MC2000. Nevertheless plenty of gain. Since dave designed and built it, I assume there may be a transformer in their somewhere.
Afraid it is not that easy, quite a bit of work has to be done before that can occur. Have no idea of the number of hours on the diamond, so it needs to be evaluated. I have a package slated to go to Expert Stylus with my Ikeda 9 for refurbishment, so it makes sense to send the MC2000 along with it to be checked out. Pretty sure that is what I am going to do, its just a matter of getting it boxed up.
When it comes back I don’t have enough gain in my phono stage to listen to it, and do not have any step up devices to make that work. So I have to do the leg work and decide which ones could be possible. Now my seller tells me if I could locate a Mac C50 for him in the US he would be willing to sell me the T2000. But I find no C50, so at the moment there is not a pathway for me to obtain the T2000, but perhaps there will be in the future. Only SUT on the net available at this time is a T1000, but it does not look like it has enough gain.
If you read the Stereophile review Holt uses a Well Tempered arm, which the magazine reports in a 1984 issue to be 10 grams. However since it rides in that silicone cup, depending on paddle depth, it may act like a higher mass arm. What is concerning is that Holt reports that after a few days of listening the cantilever looks like its starting to collapse. Now he does say that it never changes from that and completely fails. However, I would prefer that not occur to start with, as I don’t need any heart attack inducing events. The question becomes is it because of arm mass, or is it because of the fluid damping. Which if I could answer that question would determine which arm I install it on here. So far I am leaning towards the Dynavector with the Supex head shell to be the safest option.
Essentially I am just trying to determine the safest pathway to using the cartridge, and not waste a bunch of money on the pre pre amp choice. I have a Conrad Johnson HV1 sitting in the garage that a useless moving coil step up device for me because it does not have enough gain for these Ortofon cartridges, and the gain structure of my SS amp/pre amp and somewhat higher efficiency speakers makes the noise floor of the HV1 audible. This is the kind of misstep I would like to avoid in the future. That is how come I phrased this thread "a discussion".
Yes but all the options are out on the table for you. You can’t find a T2000 but you can obtain a suitable substitute that may even be superior to a T2000. You can source either a SUT or an active gain stage from Intact Audio. Apparently a SUT is available off the shelf from Jensen. There are also some very high gain current driven phono stages available. Each option requires $$$.
Dear @neonknight : Forgeret about JGH or STP rdeviews of the MC 2000.
I know very well this cartridge own/owned 3 new samples and I really like it and as a matter of fact I can remember that was me whom brougth Agon this cartridge ( maybe I'm not, can´t be totally sure. ).
Anyway, the best professional review of this cartridge was made it by Pisha through Audio magazine and he used a Technics SP10 MK2 TT and mounted the cartridge in the great Technics EPA 250 and used not only the T-2000 SUT but other SUTs too and in that review Audio made deep measurements on the MC-2000 where they found out that the cartridge has a compliance of 30+cu and even that the combination with the EPA 250 puts the resonance frequency down 5khz the cartridge traked cleanly the Telarc 1812. As I said great tonearm and very good combination with the MC 2000.
You not necessarily have to go with the T2000 and my opinion is to go for the Entré 100 SUT that gives you 33db of gain and Entré is very well designed SUT as a fact the same today My Sonic Labs people ( Go figure !.).
Yes it certainly makes sense, and since I own multiple low output Ortofon cartridges, the reality is I am going to need more than one gain device. So if I find one now I can wait for a T2000 to become available, and then move this device over to the MC200u or the MC3000. The interesting thing is the T3000 is able to perform well on the Esoteric phono stage into the MC setting. But that seems to be the lowest output voltage it can take, as the MC200u sounds stilted and hard going into that phono stage, and its output voltage is .09 mV versus the .11 mV of the MC3000.
I will call Dave and weigh that option versus the Jensen it seems, as their high output SUT is intended to be used with low output Ortofon cartridges. But in the past I have had a preference for sound from a solid state phono systems versus SUT I have used in the past. But then again, I have not owned one built to the quality level of the T2000.
But Raul suggestion of an Entec is a good one also, I have seen their units available. Know of their history of being a product designed by Mr. Matsudaira.
Neon, If you are using a SUT into an "MC" phono stage, be very sure that the phono input resistor is 47K ohms, not the more typical 100 ohm range, albeit because the internal resistance of the MC2000 is only 2 ohms, you probably can get away easily with values lower than 47K ohms. The rule of thumb is that the internal R of the cartridge should be about 1/10 of the phono input resistor value, ideally. So for a 2-ohm cartridge, you could actually get away with a net 20-ohm input impedance. Keep in mind that the input impedance seen by the cartridge will be the value of the phono input resistor divided by the square of the turns ratio of the SUT. If the turns ratio needed is 1:30, that would give you a net input impedance of ~52 ohms with a 47K resistor, so you don’t want to go much below 47K.
The Entré ET100 is a great recommendation, but the ET200 is an even better choice as it is dedicated to low impedance MC’s and has no switching. The gain is 30dB, which will be enough in combination with you Esoteric phono amp. Price is in the same ballpark as ET100.
Raul’s experience seems to confirm mine that the MC2000 can be used with a wide range of tonearms. The unusual choice of a heavy aluminium body for such a high compliance system may be responsible for its compatibility with higher mass arms, while at the same time ruling out the use of low mass tonearms designed for lightweight high compliance MM’s. I believe this was a deliberate choice on Ortofon’s part, which could explain why it seems to work quite well with higher mass tonearms. Perhaps it was even intended for such tonearms……
Dear @edgewear : I owned the T2000 that every MC2000 owner were using in those times but I agree with Pisha: not the best SUT other than its high gain.
Entré are superior and rigth now in Poland is the ET300 that's very rare to find out. I don't need it. I have a good active high gain SS phonolinepreamp but even that in the past I owned several SUTs ( I still have one Entré and a pair od Denon and ATY.....) and still own and use ( time to time ) the Denon 1000.
The phono stage has MM and MC settings. with 40 dB of gain in MM mode at 47K. I would have to input the SUT with the Esoteric set in MM mode, so I need 30 dB of gain out of the SUT.
The Esoteric has 66 dB of gain in MC mode. But I won't be using it in that configuration for this application.
Edgeware, I agree with your and Raul’s laissez faire attitude toward tonearm matching, but your logic above is faulty. If one wants to conform to the resonant frequency calculation then one must use a very lightweight tonearm, owing to the relatively high mass of the cartridge body and its high compliance. The high mass of the cartridge is a potential detriment to using even a medium to high mass tonearm. Don’t you think? Where have I gone wrong here?
Lewm, what you say makes perfect sense and I don’t think you have gone wrong. On that theoretically sound basis the MC200 should not work properly in a high mass tonearm, let alone an FR64S. And yet it absolutely does, as it also does in the FR64FX, Audiocraft AC4400 and Pioneer EA-70 (tonearm of the PL70L II) none of which would qualify as lightweight tonearms. So what seems logical in theory works out very differently in practice.
My perhaps faulty suspicion (not logic) is that Ortofon must have been aware of this behaviour. Or else why would they decide in favour of the akward combination of high body mass and very high compliance for their statement cartridge?
I did my homework prior to purchase and considered the risk of a tonearm mismatch, but my curiosity to hear the MC2000 was simply too strong. To my surprise and delight it has worked splendidly.
Dear @lewm : " I have two other high gain phono stages that are certainly quiet enough, but they don't have quite enough gain to make me happy. The MC2000 sounds a bit anemic with those two. "
I can't know the @edgewearopinion but the MC2000 " undress " any room/system, same as the Essential 3150/60.
In neither of those SS active high gain phonolinepreamps the MC2000 sounds " anemic ". I think that you have some trouble in your room/system. Where? I can't know but your post showed a trouble down there.
Your comparison with the cartridge in the MM+"headamp"(?) is a bad one because you are comparing apples with tomatoes. Way different.
As I said, you have a problem where you are not aware of it yet.
Think of all what is hidding behind that Manley Steelhead ( obviously by tubes. ) plus additional IC cables/connectors plus that " headamp " against the straigth Essential unit that additional has a way more accurated inverse RIAA eq. that your Manley.
I am afraid I am just a bit simple, as I am not understanding the point of the previous post.
I do understand the reference back to the MC3000 post I made earlier this year when I acquired that cartridge. When I purchased that cartridge, it indeed was meant as a casual cartridge as I had pretty modest money invested in it. I was not sure I wanted to spend $1000 to $2000 for a SUT for it, and it be the only cartridge I need that level of SUT for.
The MC2000 is a different level of cartridge for me, in part because of the memories of when I worked in a hi fi store that I posted in the opening post. Also the output voltage demands a high gain device, whether it be SUT or active, and that is a non-negotiable item, when you have .05 mV however you step up that signal is going to be a somewhat expensive solution. As Lewm said, that will cost money.
Finally, this is a pretty rare opportunity, as there are not many MC2000 produced to start with, and the number of good ones are slowly being dwindled because of accidents and wear. I watched two auctions on Buyee and one is decent shape but only stylus guard went for a bit over $1000, and one with a skewed cantilever but all case and paperwork went for slightly over $1000 also, and we don’t know if the cantilever can be saved. I am fortunate to find one that looks as close to as new as can be hoped for, of course we do not know the condition of the diamond, and that means to make it a quality cartridge it’s going to need a diamond exchange. A paratrace will probably be as close as one can hope to get to the original diamond, and the best that can be done at this point.
How I obtained this cartridge is a bit of a miracle also. I was sitting with my wife one evening watching Star Trek with her, and I was browsing through Canuckmart when I ran across the ad that was put up earlier in the day. I saw that he did not take Paypal, and it had been up for a number of hours already. I reached out just in case, and the seller agreed to work with me while I arranged payment through a friend in Canada. His kindness allowed me to make a purchase. The very fortunate part is that the price was $650 CAD, and with shipping it ended up costing my $582 USD. Getting a cartridge of this rarity and in this condition, and difficult payment arrangement was short of a miracle. I suspect it would have been a long time before an opportunity like this would present itself again.
So that creates a bit of excitement for me, and the belief that this can be more than a casual cartridge like I had planned for the MC3000. Also I now have 3 cartridges that can benefit from a high gain pre pre-amp, whether it be SUT or active. So I am more amenable to spending that money. One other thing I have not mentioned is I was also fortunate enough to acquire another Dynavector DV505 arm that will get mounted to the Scheu Analog Das Laufwerk No 2 table. So between two detachable headshell arms that are identical, and a phono stage that allows for two inputs, I have the ability to make cartridge comparisons that will have the same table, arm, and phono stage, and independent loading options for each side. That should keep me busy for awhile.
Could you please clarify for me what the question is for the last post you were wanting an answer for? I will certainly try to give you the best answer I can.
I have owned Dynavector arms ( along with many others ) for 30 years and have used them with a variety of cartridges. The Dynavector has high effective mass in the horizontal plane, and lower effective mass in the vertical plain. This means the low frequency peak will be much lower than a conventional arm as it is split over 2 frequencies due to the split effective mass.. Also in the horizontal plane it has electromagnetic damping which helps to control low frequency resonance in the horizontal mode ( where the high mass is ).
I have been quite surprised at the results with high compliance cartridges in this arm despite the high horizontal effective mass. They have been excellent.
I would not be too worried about using the DV505 for the high compliance Ortofon MC2000.
Thanks guys, having confirmation that both of you have had no ill effects of the higher horizontal mass of the DV505 with high compliance cartridges sets my mind at ease. My plans will be to use it on the DV505 when the cartridge gets serviced and returned. I suppose I could run it now before it gets sent off, the Esoteric is 66 dB on MC mode, so given how much gain I get out of the Halcro and AVM Audio amps I may very well just get a taste of the cartridge before it gets sent off.
@neonknight : Never mind, not important but thank's.
Btw, in one of my MC2000 samples I sended to VDH for a change of cantilever/stylus and I did it not because it need it but to compare aginst the original and my experience is that with the boron cantilever and VDH stylus the cartridge is way better quality performer.
Afraid I don't see the point. No one has ever claimed it to be competitive with the finest cartridges of today. I have a Transfiguration Audio Proteus and ZYX 4D that satisfy me in that category, and have owned and sold several other quality modern cartridges.
From a historical perspective it was considered one of the best cartridges in the world at its time. It will be interesting to hear what it is capable of, as it provides a great reference point of what was available in the mid to late 1980s.
Whether this is a "good cartridge" or something above or below that is a matter of perspective and individual interpretation, which is a large portion of this hobby if we are being honest, and this determination is not being conducted with any kind of objective testing that can generate a hierarchal ranking based on data.
I am just curious to hear what the performance differences are between some of my current modern cartridges and a historical classic that was once considered to be the among the top tier of cartridges available. Add into equation that this cartridge has value to me from a personal perspective, and that makes the act of ownership a bit more special.
It always boils down to "distortions" that the other guy "likes".
You don't seem to recognize that the Manley Steelhead drives the Beveridge speaker system and woofers that I have in a system totally separate from the Sound Lab system. The Beveridge amplifiers are single-ended, so I chose an SE preamplifier (the Steelhead) to drive the inputs. The 3160 and my MP1 drive the Sound Lab system, which is fully balanced from cartridges (three turntables) to amplifier outputs. (For those who don't know, those two preamps are fully balanced.) Each system, and every other single system, has its own gain characteristics that are determined primarily by the phono and linestage gain, the input sensitivity of the amplifier, and the efficiency of the speakers. The MC2000 has been in the Beveridge system for the last few years. When I did have it driving the 3160 in the Sound Lab system, it was my perception that the SQ was a bit "anemic" (my choice of word). Which is to say that if I turned up the gain to the point where associated noise became audible, which I don't like to tolerate, the SQ, while clean and quiet up to that point, was not as "full" as I thought it ought to be. These are totally subjective terms, and one would have to be in the same room with me to verify or deny the truth of those opinions. I was even contemplating selling the MC2000, in my frustration.
Based on the printed material that was supplied to me with the 3160, the MC section can provide 60db of gain. You were not able to tell me, a few years ago, how much gain is added by the linestage, but I am guessing it must be at least 15-20db, because the 3160 works like a champ with my Audio Technica ART7, which makes 0.12mV (about twice the output of the MC2000) at the standard velocity. At about 75db of total phonolinepreamp gain, the ART7 would supply around 0.7V to the amplifier inputs, at full output. I can blow myself out of the room, with the 3160 attenuators at about 1 o'clock. Hence, my estimate of linestage gain in the 3160. As you may also recall, my particular 3160 has two separate MC sections; it does not have an MM section, like the standard version. When I asked you whether you could convert one MC section to MM, I was told it cannot be done. Thus I do not have the option of running the MC2000 into a SUT or pre-preamp and then into the 3160 MM stage. The MC2000 makes only .05mV output at standard stylus velocity. I estimate you need a minimum of 80db total gain, or more would be better, to be sure of driving most amplifiers properly. 80db of total gain would give a preamplifier output of ~0.5V. As you know, most amplifiers are OK with anywhere from 0.5V to 2V for full output. Given the characteristics of the 3160, I was not surprised that I felt a sense of lean-ness to the sound from the MC2000, at attenuator levels where noise did not intrude. My particular Sound Labs are probably more efficient than any others that do not bear the modifications performed on mine, which involved removal of passive crossover components that suck and waste amplifier power. So, I am loathe to blame either my amplifiers, which are coasting with the Sound Labs, or the SLs themselves, but if I have a "problem" it is a very slight lack of total phonolinepreamp gain when using the MC2000 into the 3160. Your "problem" is your extreme sensitivity to even the hint of criticism of the the 3160. I have written here more than once that I think it is a terrific unit, easily the best SS preamplifier that I have ever heard and one of the best of any kind that I have ever heard. To say that it is just a bit short of gain for the MC2000 is hardly an insult. I am very happy with the 3160.
Should I conclude every post from now on with the statement, "I hate distortion as much as you"?
Dear @lewm : No, it's not that way. For me the word " anemic " ( your word. ) says to me that something is not really good down there because the 2000 is not anemic in my first hand experiences with different audio items and tonearms and TTs.
In the other side, it's obvious that each one of us like different kind of distortions. For me, distortions levels is the name of the game in audio. You already know that I always " work " trying to mantain all kind of distortions at " minimum " in my room system.
So I sent the MC2000 off to Expert Stylus along with my Ikeda 9 Kawami. They are reporting a 3 to 4 week turn around time, must have caught them at a good time.
VAS has my Transfiguration Audio Proteus and ZYX 4D, hopefully I will get them back in a bit. Getting a bit short on cartridges here, still have the MC3000 and Audio Technica OC9 XSL here. So I can at least spin a record.
So I got an email yesterday from the gentleman who sold me the MC2000. He was ready to sell the T2000 now. Its in excellent condition with all packing materials. So I paid the man, and its on the way here. The cartridge is still at Expert Stylus getting a new diamond, so within about a month or so I will be able to get this installed.
So far I have used the T2000 SUT with the MC3000 cartridge since its installed and aligned on a headshell. The MC2000 is at Expert Stylus getting a new diamond put on it and a general cleaning and tune-up. I need a set of headshell wires to install the MC200, and that is a pairing I am really curious to hear. Took awhile to get proper grounding between the T2000 and a Graham Slee Accession phono stage.
With the MC3000 the sound isn't too far off my better cartridges. While not the same sound, and perhaps lacking the finest bit of detail in the upper registers, its at least in the same ballpark. It's like they had worked out what the sound should be like, and have spent the following years refining it and getting output voltages up to higher levels and retaining that overall presentation. I imagine that is no small feat, going from ..05 mV in case of the MC2000 to .10 mV with the MC3000 and now to cartridges between .30 and .40 mV in the current lineup.
Also find that the sound can be varied quite a bit with the interconnects between the SUT and the phono stage. Overall quite pleased how this has turned out. This gives me a second phono stage that is quite flexible, but it won't cause me to abandon my Esoteric and its ability to use MC cartridges directly. Probably still my preference, but now I have options. Also have a Conrad Johnson MV1 that has a very interesting presentation, probably due to the Nuvistor tubes, but it really needs a cartridge in the ,3 mV range or higher.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
