|
I didn’t mention the FR 2 in my post. I am only curious about the ones I referred to. |
I see, but FR-2 and FR-MC 202 / 201 have at least similatiry in numbers, like the FR-7 series and FR-702 (which is an Export version).
PMC-3 is a different cartridge, do you have PMC-3 to compare it to the MC-201/202?
Look at the old J.Carr’s posts about PMC-3. This is the closest model to FR-7 series. |
The question is about identity while identity theory already exist. Say for someone who does not know that Vienna is the same city as Wien (German) , Wenen (Dutch), Bec (Serbo- Croatian), etc. We are used to think that names have unique reference. But there are different names with the same reference. This made ''logical conclusion'' about the truth possible : ''whatever is true about Vienna is also true about Wien, Wenen and Bec (grin). This is called ''substitutio salva veritate'' . One can substitute any of those names for each other and retain the truth. |
I owned a MC201 back in 1980-81. Wish I still had it! |
For anyone who's interested here are the specs gleaned from the web and from back issues of Consumer Audio magazines. PMC-1
Output – 0.17
mV
VTF – 1.1g
to 1.5g
Impedance –
14 Ohms
Compliance –
10 @ 100Hz
Weight – 7.5g
Tip – 0.1mm
square elliptical diamond needle
Price when
new – Yen 25,000 (1981) (Japan only??)
PMC-3
Output – 0.17
mV
VTF – 1.3g
to 1.7g
Impedance – 8.6
Ohms
Compliance –
8 @ 100Hz
Weight – 7.5g
Tip – “VITAL”
refined contact diamond
Price when
new – Yen 40,000 (1981) (Japan only??)
MC 201
Output – 0.16
mV
VTF – 1.5g
to 2.0g
Impedance – 8
Ohms
Compliance –
10 @ 100Hz
Weight – 7.5g
Tip – 0.3 x
2 mils line contact
Price when
new – US$300 (1982) (US/Europe only??)
MC 202
Output – 0.17
mV
VTF – 1.5g
to 2.0g
Impedance – 8.75
Ohms
Compliance –
8.5 @ 100Hz
Weight – 7.5g
Tip – 0.2 x 0.8
mils “VITAL” refined contact nude diamond
Price when
new – US$350 (1982) (US/Europe only??)
FR-2
Output – 0.1
mV
VTF – 1.5g
to 2.0g
Impedance – 6
Ohms
Compliance –
10 @ 100Hz
Weight – 7.5g
Tip – 0.3 x 3
mils line contact
Price when
new – Yen 36,000 (Date Unknown??) (Japan only??)
|
@roberjerman
I owned a MC201 back in 1980-81. Wish I still had it! Then why don't you buy it? This model is not rare and often for sale for cheap in perfect condition. |
Your erudition and wit are fun to read, as always. But I don’t think the question is whether Vienna = Wien (of course it does).
Ateal is asking if the FR MC-201 and MC-202 are the same cartridges as the FR PMC-1 and PMC-3.
If they are, substitutio salva veritate applies. But if they aren’t, it doesn’t. If they aren’t, it would be like saying Vienna = Salzburg.
|
@bimasta @nandric Your erudition and wit are fun to read, as always. I must say my frined Nikola has repeat his favorite joke about Vienna 50 times already (on this forum). I like Vienna, beautiful city. In my languare Vienna or Wien starts with the "V", but different FR models starts with different numbers. I believe that MC-201/202 is not PMC-3 |
I think based on price point, specs and the stylus profile, that the PM-3 and MC 202 would be very similar. Not the same, and not one better than the other, but very similar.
I have a PMC-1 and have just received an MC 202 today in the post, so once I have a few hours on it to loosen up the suspension I will be able to compare.
The PMC-1 is an amazing cartridge to my ears and suits my particular needs perfectly. Curiosity led me to buy the MC 202. |
@ateal You can have my PMC-3 in mint condition because my FR-7fz is much better cartridge than any of them.
According to Jonathan Carr who's a friend of Isamu Ikeda:
"From my perspective (that of an active cartridge designer), the closest thing to a non-integrated headshell version of the FR-7 was the PMC-3, but even this remained quite a way off. The FR-7 had a radically different coil former (cube-shaped), likewise for the magnetics (dual magnets, quad polepieces). IMO, the FR7s were by far the most interesting of FR's MC designs, but the 7's basic design concept dictated that they would always be big, heavy monsters, suited for relatively few modern arms... My favorite FR-7s are the f and fz. The very low coil inductance of the FR-7 implies that loading can be fairly flexible, so I wouldn't be so concerned with the low impedance. Also, none of the FR-7s are overachievers in detail, and the top end extension is a little curtailed. so the downsides of transformer stepups won't be overly apparent. However, in consideration of the low coil inductance, should you choose a stepup transformer, I would look for a toroidal-core type. FWIW, I've known Isamu Ikeda for many years, and not once has he suggested that the FR-7 was any kind of successor to the FR-1. Even today he appears to remain proud of what he accomplished with the 7 (also the Ikeda 9), but the FR-1 hardly ever comes up in our discussions. "
|
Not sure I need your PMC-3 thanks.
Also not quite sure why you need to reference the FR-7fz and state that it’s better than all of them. There is always something better, obviously.
Also my post was only related to the PMC and MC series. If you have no info that could help answer the original question then no need to use my post to bragg about your equipment. |
Dear chakster, To be more accurate I used Vienna as example 51 times. The reason is simple. This is the easy way to explain how different names can refer to the same object. The so called ''co-referring names''. But those do cause confusion. Besides we all assume that new names don't mean new products but old one with new prices. You know how much I admire Ikeda san. However I don't believe that that different names of those ''cantileverless'' kinds refer to different carts. My comrade Don swears that 9C, mk 2 is exactly the same as 9C. mk 3. Think of those Jelco (25?) headshells . There are unknown many all the same and all with different prices. It is, I think, our duty to our co-members to warn them when we discover such cases. But some theory about those ''co-referring names'' may be useful (grin).
|
@ateal
ok, i will leave you alone with your thread, good luck
seems like you have no information and you’d better look for english manuals for the carts that you call "japanese only", i believe japanese can’t read in english and vice versa. |
As promised I thought I would update this thread with my findings on the FR 202 cartridge and I have to say without ANY reservations that this is the most perfect cartridge I have ever owned, it now beats out my Spectral Reference LOMC cartridge.
Like every Fidelity Research cartridge the tone of instruments is amazing and lifelike and this cart takes that way beyond what I have experienced before.
As for frequency range the cartridge goes down very low indeed and is very solid. Bass notes slam you in the chest. Nothing flabby or bloated at all. The upper frequency range is more prominent than other Fidelity Research cartridges I have owned, but it is very smooth and not at all harsh. It was a little harsh at first but now the cartridge has been broken in it is not harsh at all.
Soundstage and imaging is phenominal to the point it is holographic.
Best of all it is musical and engaging and allows you to get lost in the music without analyzing everything.
I absolutely love this cartridge and I’m so glad curiosity got the better of me and I bought it.
|
My ''theory'' (aka ássumption'') is that Ikeda san deed not spend much money for advertising. This explains the lack of information about the most of his carts. Thanks to Dertonarm I learned about FR-7 series but needed to hear all of them in order to decide which to keep. My comrade Don (Griffiths) and I repeat the same procedure regarding Ikeda 9 series ; the ''cantileverless kind''. We started with 9 C 2 and 3 and are now ''inspecting'' the REX and SUPREMO. The big (?) difference between those and the rest is VTF : 1.5 g versus 2-3 g. Those cantileverless kinds are not good tracker. On test records by tracking ability one can hardly get 50 microns ''pure''. Our assumption based on this ''theory'' seems to be correct. Don who already tested (my) REX got 60 microns pure with 2 g but prefer 1,75 g. sound. |
I have two MC-201s. One is used — no idea of hours but stylus looks quite good at 150X to my highly inexpert eye. The other is NOS; I played it once, to confirm it works. It does and sounded lovely, but it was not really critical listening, and it hasn’t broken-in — or whatever a 40-year old suspension does.
I also found a NOS 202 and I was happy to get it, until I opened the box: the cantilever was bent 90° to the right. Even so, he wouldn’t reduce the price — odd for a retailer, maybe he thought someone would come along and buy it without looking.
The 201, though mentioned at the outset, is not discussed thereafter. Of course I’m intrigued when Ateal says the 202 is "the most perfect cartridge I have ever owned...now the cartridge has been broken in...."
The styli differ slightly in the minor radius: a slight reduction of detail? Are there other significant differences between the two?
Can someone give me an idea of what my 201 will be like, broken in? Anything like what Ateal so greatly enjoys in his 202?
|
One other observation of the MC-202 is that it has similarities to the Ortofon SPU’s I have owned in the past. Especially as it relates to PRaT and midrange musical slam.
It exhibits all of the documented qualities of an SPU but does it much better than the SPU’s I have previously owned.
For this reason I would guess that it is more similar to the FR7 series than some people would like to give it credit for.
I guess I will have to wait until I can pick up an FR7 before I can prove that theory out.
|
When I purchased my 202 NOS a few years ago the seller had a stash of them found in his dad's warehouse. When I asked if I could get a discount on a second he refused. Said that most buyers purchased two of them anyway. I have two. Ikeda San was a artist within the cart world.
I know beauty is in the ear of the beholder in this case but the last thing I would give up in my system are my two MC 202s. |
Well the relevance of ateal's question can be illustrated on the following example. Those who followed Glanz thread know (?) that Glanz and Astatic ''series'' are produced by Mitachi company in Japan. So my ''Wien''= ''Vienna'' become Astatic 200= Glanz 31. However there are people willing to pay more for Astatic 200 then Glanz 31. To my own surprise I discovered that Mitachi obviously also produced some for Jamo (Denmark). The Jamo equivalent for Astatic 200 and/or Glanz 31 was sold on Ebay for $150 less than Astatic 200. All three ''kinds'' are sold for different prices such that Astatic 200 got the highest prices. We can then answer Shakespeare question ''What is a name?'' Well identity is about reference : ''what we are talking about?'' The names however lack ''predicative function''. They say nothing about their bearers . However the persons who were willing to pay more for Astatic 200 were obviously not aware that Astatic= Glanz= Jamo. |
