2. analog
  3. 1251581636

Micro Acoustics vs Grace F-9 MM's

Okay, any of you 80's analog "geezers" (like myself..) had an opportunity to compare the likes of the the re-known Grace F-9E, Ruby, or L, to the Micro Acoustic 2002 or 3002 ceramic MM's.

I have the MA 3002 and its a very enjoyable cart! A lot like the early Shures IMO.

We are so many years removed from the technology of that time of course, and Im not looking to replace my newer reference gear, but was curious of these two fine MM's in comparison to sound.

Thanks,
Ken
kehut

Showing 2 responses by rauliruegas

rauliruegas
13,125 posts
 
Dear Ken: I own the F-9, the Ruby, the MA 2002e and its big " brother the MA 630.

I don't have ( yet ) opportunity to hear the 2002e ( I have many cartridges: around 80-90. ) but the MA 630 is something especial and way better than the F9 and with a different presentation than the Ruby but I can say at the same quality performance level.
In this thread you can read something on the Ruby performance:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667

I agree with you that all these " old " cartridges are very fine. The Grace cartridges and the MA 630 are IMHO better than the " early " Shure's. I will try to find some time to test the MA 2002e that for what I know/read somewhere is a very fine cartridge too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
rauliruegas
13,125 posts
 
Dear Tommy: +++++ " i will likely have soundsmith give it the ruby treatment. " +++++

like any good cartridge its quality performance comes ( between other things ) IMHO for the achieved designer goals through the designer cartridge voicing a " ruby treatment " is something different and IMHO does not makes that a F9e could performs like the original F9 Ruby.

Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
More to discover