2. analog
  3. 137714-74046

Theory about Fidelity Research MC & PMC Carts

I have a theory that the Fidelity Research MC 201 and 202 were the US market version of the PMC-1 and PMC-3. They were all produced from 1980 to 1984 and the specs on each look very similar.

Also, I have searched the entire internet and found no evidence of either the PMC’s being available in USA or the 201/202 being available in Japan.

Does anyone have any info to support or reject this theory.

Thanks in advance.


ateal
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

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.

bimasta's avatar
bimasta
227 posts
 
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?
ateal OP
97 posts
 
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. 
dentdog's avatar
dentdog
498 posts
 
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.
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

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.

More to discover