Upper Level Vintage DD Strenghts and Weaknesses

Actually I have had a history with these kinds of tables in the past. In the late 90s I ended up being an early adopter of the Teres Audio turntable, and I had a pretty nice one with an Eminent Technology II air bearing tone arm. In a moment of temporary insanity I thought I could be happy with a digital only stereo. Utter foolishness, and I sold my analog stuff. 

About 6 years later I re-entered vinyl, and I did that with a Townshend Rock MK III but it really was not on par with my Teres. I ended up buying a Galibier Serac and was quite happy with it for a number of years even though it was a somewhat homely table. I used a Riggle Engineering 12" Woody arm on it. 

The common thread connecting these two tables is they were designed by Chris Brady and Thom Mackris, who were both founding members of the Teres Project. The table that inspired that project and their initial model was....The Scheu table. So I enjoyed both of those tables immensely, and I really should have kept the Teres. This purchase allows me to reach back to the genesis, to get the TOTL table from the company that inspired them. 

There is an added benefit that this table does not take up a lot of room. I have a credenza that hold my gear, and I have a SOTA Cosmos Eclipse on it and a Well Tempered Reference next to it. The amount of room available for a third table is a bit limited. The Scheu will fit that space, and other tables make everything quite cramped. When I had an Amazon Reference on here I had literally no room between the tables. So this is an added benefit for me. Additionally it can accept another arm board, so if I want to adding a second arm is pretty easy. 

Finding an isolation base for it would be a bit challenging as its somewhat monolithic. Weight is 38 KG, so just shy of 80 pounds. Finding a platform to handle that level of weight might be a bit of a challenge. 

Its getting ready to ship. Coming UPS from Warsaw. So i don't expect to see it for at least a week. Waiting is always the toughest part. 

It looks like your plan has a Solid Foundation from experiences enjoyed.
The acquisition of a TT built with today's technologies, that has been a inspiration in the past, is surely an exciting venture.
This is a approach, I seem to get caught up in, investigating and pursuing using modern technologies on TT's.  

Very much looking forward to your user evaluations when you are ready to report on them.

Picked up an Ortofon MC200. Has a fine line stylus, boron cantilever, samarium cobalt ring magnet, and Ortofons WRD damping system. Output is low...

Do you like it?
It's Concorde MC200 ?  

Rare model, most people forgot the Concorde was an MC and not for DJs :) Because later the Concorde MM became the most significant model and the best seller (but not for audiophiles) on professional market. 

@chakster 

This is the Ortofon MC200U, which is the 1/2 inch version. They did make one with an integrated head shell. This integrated design also was sold under the Concorde name, and they had a T4P version called the CMC I believe. The one I have looks like the OM body cartridge, but its silver and has a non user replicable stylus. 

This is a cartridge I have owned before. I remember thinking it was respectable but not really a wow moment. But I wanted a cartridge for casual listening to keep the hours off my main cartridge so I grabbed this one again. I installed it on a Zupreme headshell with stock cartridge wires, and while this is probably too much mass for it, its what I had at the time. I think I will order a carbon fiber head shell to use with this cartridge. I got the pleasant but a bit unexciting presentation, and I also had a bit of low level hum. So I swapped in some silver litz cartridge wires I had recently bought, and that did the trick. No noise, and more open presentation. I am enjoying this cartridge, and even as we speak its playing at this moment. The sound is interesting, its somewhat effortless with good flow, a bit fuller than many modern cartridges, but still well detailed but the truth is its not as resolving as my ZYX or Transfiguration. But this cartridge is just meant for casual listening, and one where i will use the hours up and then send it as a trial to a new retipper to see what he is capable of. 

This led me down memory lane and thinking about the vintage moving coils I have liked in the past, and in some ways wish I still had here. I enjoy listening to the Denon 103M which reminds me a lot of the Denon DL304. But the output voltage is .12 mV, and also the Fidelity Research MC202 with an output voltage of .13 mV. These are tough output voltages to work with, but I wonder if the low number of coil windings is what contributes to the wonderful sound of those cartridges. At that time you likely had to use step up transformers. In my case I have an Esoteric E-03 phono stage that can handle those low voltages. I prefer the sound of an active phono stage over a two piece set up using a SUT in the first gain stage. 

The Ortofon MC200 is even worse with an output voltage of .09 mV. But it uses some pretty snazzy technology for a cartridge this age. Boron cantilever, fine line nude (line contact) stylus, samarium cobalt ring magnet, and Ortofons WRD damping system which is still found on their higher level cartridges today.

So all in all its a nice cartridge, and I am getting very good sound and I bought it very inexpensively. 

The one I have looks like the OM body cartridge, but its silver and has a non user replicable stylus.

So it’s like this, but without replaceable stylus?
Here is the specs for "U"

Interesting that these type of cartridges were popular back then, so many manufacturers made "OM-alike" design, but most of them were MM.

SONY made an MC-1 and MC-3 with, but my personal favorite are MM XL-50 with Boron Pipe (and very rare XL-70 with Sapphire cantilever). I was lucky to find a few NOS samples of XL-50, now I hope to replace my XL-70 with NOS unit. 

Accutex (Azden) cartridges have the same "OM-alike" design.

Stanton and Pickering also made something similar.

The Ortofon MC200 is even worse with an output voltage of .09 mV. But it uses some pretty snazzy technology for a cartridge this age. Boron cantilever, fine line nude (line contact) stylus, samarium cobalt ring magnet, and Ortofons WRD damping system which is still found on their higher level cartridges today.

I never tried Concorde or OM MC200, but I have Ortofon MC2000 with terribly low output too, and all the advanced technology of that age. MC2000 is completely different from MC200.

the Fidelity Research MC202 with an output voltage of .13 mV. These are tough output voltages to work with, but I wonder if the low number of coil windings is what contributes to the wonderful sound of those cartridges. At that time you likely had to use step up transformers. In my case I have an Esoteric E-03 phono stage that can handle those low voltages.

Besides the FR best 7f and 7fz, I enjoyed PMC-3 and now discovered the MCX-3 designed by Ozawa (now Shelter) which I posted in FR dedicated thread recently.

Vintage cartridges really isn't my thing, nor is owning a couple dozen of them. I only have one system and a limit of three turntables. So I need 4 or 5 cartridges at the most. The MC200 is meant to be a casual listening cartridge as I have a lot of music on vinyl that is not duplicated in my digital collection. Yes I can stream but I find my vinyl sounds better. I paid $105 shipped for the MC200 and I will use up the hours in the diamond and then send it off to a retipper who claims he can replace a diamond on stock cantilever and get factory quality alignment. We will see, this is a good test mule for that. 

The sound is fundamentally different than current Ortofon cartridges. I believe when CD came out manufacturers had a different target for voicing with their new designs. This cartridge comes from the pre CD era so it does present music differently, and its a nice change of pace to have. Perhaps I will acquire another vintage cartridge at some time, I have always wanted to own one of the Kiseki or perhaps a Shinon. 

Actually who knows what the future holds. My system is pretty well done as I have three good tables and I only run one audio system and the gear I got is long term keepers. So maybe i will end up exploring vintage MC cartridges. 

I think you would find, or at least in my opinion, MC cartridges have advanced quite a bit more in terms of sound quality than have moving magnet or moving iron iron cartridges, since the good old days of the 1970s. I choose that era because the first MC cartridges to reach the US market did so in the early 1970s, to the best of my recollection. Specifically we received the Supex line of cartridges from Japan at about that time. In my opinion, the Supex cartridges were no match for any of the better moving magnet and moving iron cartridges of those days. That could be because there was a dearth of devices that had sufficient gain to handle the low output of the cartridges. Mark Levinson was one of the first to produce such a black box which could be used ahead of a moving magnet phono stage to add gain. I suppose there were also SUT‘s back then, but I have no memory of them. However, gurus like Harry Pearson jumped on the bandwagon right away, and his praise of the Supex was way over the top compared to what my own ears told me back then. I was not even tempted to own one. My point is that I think you would have more fun investigating vintage moving magnet and moving iron cartridges and stick with later production moving coil types, say from the 1990s onwards to the present.

@lewm
I currently use a Transfiguration Audio Proteus and ZYX 4D. Also have an Ikeda Kawami which counts as a classic MC but sounds nothing like one. The Proteus and 4D meet my needs for modern MC and I am content with them. Anything I do now is just for fun, to explore, but for my best sound reproduction I got what I can afford, I dont't have the resources to climb higher. 

My point is that I think you would have more fun investigating vintage moving magnet and moving iron cartridges and stick with later production moving coil types, say from the 1990s onwards to the present.

Definitely, my recent discovery is Azden Piezo Ym-320X (IM) 
Azden and Accutex is the same thing. 

The Acutex 300 series are IM, as you say, but where does the “piezo” come in? Acutex 400 series are conventional MM. The Azden line was discussed in Raul’s original MM thread, but I don’t recall too much about them.

I know, but you know Azden as Acutex because you're in America. 

In Japan the brand is Azden and Piezo is the name of the model with index 320X, it's IM cartridge. 

It's the same story as Vicor = JVC, Jeweltone = Nagaoka, Edison = Miyajima ... Azden = Acutex. 

  

I worked for an audio shop during my college years. Late 1980s, in Washington State. We carried the Azden YM series of cartridges. So they were available in the US too. 

So my table shipped on Thursday. If it clears customs in a timely manner I hope to have it next week. 

I worked for an audio shop during my college years. Late 1980s, in Washington State. We carried the Azden YM series of cartridges. So they were available in the US too.

Great. More about Azden/Acutex with pictures and scans of the catalog here.

The Transfiguration Proteus is a MC Cartridge I have been very curious about.
During the Xmas Break in 2020, I was a hair trigger from making a Purchase.
The seller was UK based but decided to keep it.

I am keeping up with a market scan to see if another shows at a reasonable asking price.

VAS NY Inc is showing that their service is able to keep these Cartridges in good fettle, which is good news for when buying used, and also for extending the length of time the Model can be used.

Search engines are weird, and sometimes we miss information or posts with them. I happened to find this post when using my phone and when using my computer it never comes up in a search. But there is a bit of information that is interesting. I have owned the A90 and there are certain times when listening to acoustic music on this MC200 that I hear a familial sound, and I came up with that observation on my own. So it is interesting to read this post which gives some context on why they sound similar. With that being said, there is no way I am saying this cartridge is an equivalent of an A90.

The following post was from a thread in Vinyl Engine:


"a while ago I bought a needle-less Ortofon MC-200 in order to get it re-tipped.
Unfortunately, one channel was dead. So this one was for the bin.

I decided to dismantle it in order to have a look at the interior of the generator.
What I found there in terms of magnets, pole pieces and needle suspension,
shows - construction wise - a strong resemblance with the visible part of the
the Ortofon A90’s generator.

Ortofon may have stopped the MC-100 / MC-200 line, but it’s generater lives
in the current Cadenza series. (and others, like the BACH series)"

This is the second time I have owned this cartridge, and the first time was pleasant but no wow factor. This time around the phono stage is better suited in dealing with this very low output voltage. When designed I am sure this cartridge was intended to be used with an Ortofon SUT, and perhaps in the future I will acquire one. I am not a huge fan of SUTs and to be honest I typically like the sound I get from a high performance phono stage that can handle low output MC, but the .09 mV is difficult to deal with in any respect.

At the moment its mounted on a Dynavector DV505 arm and LP Gear Zupreme head shell. Its not a high compliance design, with a compliance of 13 dyne but only a recommended tracking force of 1.5 grams. The combination of arm and cartridge works, and while I bought this to be used for casual listening I am pretty tickled that I can get such good sound out of an inexpensive cartridge. With acoustic music it is very realistic, so good that I really cannot find any significant faults, especially on piano music. With pop and rock music it can be a bit too honest, in that the sound can be a touch hard sounding. Not aggressive, or having the top end elevated, but rather very precise and these recordings sound like they could use a bit of warmth, perhaps the right term is a touch sterile. I was listening to 45 RPM club extended mixes last night, and found that to be the case with tracks from Soft Cell, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Cameo and so forth. Its like the curtain is pulled back and you hear what the mix really sounds like, and there are elements of the song that are exposed and cannot be hidden. On other albums I have the top end can be quite distant, its really recording dependent, so its not an inherent rising top end characteristic of the cartridge. For instance I have an album on from Chic this morning, and the sound is much more rounded and warm, so it really comes down to the mixes.

This is an interesting cartridge. I will use it as my casual one, and its a great one for this task. Truth is its probably better than that role, but I am lucky to be able to use one for a daily driver. I think I will do a bit of research and see which Ortofon SUT will work the best with this cartridge and give it a shot.

@neonknight  
I have DP80 with DK100 and DA401 arm with DL303. I use it with HA1000. I like it very much, and I decided to have DK2300 and DP75 from Japan. I will use DA309 and DL103R. I still need to get another arm. Maybe I will get DA307. I will use LoMC Ortofon cartridge with DA307.  With all, it will cost me around $1200 without cartridges. 

@ihcho 
That Denon HA1000 head amp is pretty grainy and not particularly transparent, you should probably upgrade that before you spend more on another arm or cartridge, if you want best value upgrade.

I got HA1000 from an original owner who had kept it in mint condition, and actually it sounds pretty good.
I have Allnic H1202 and Live! MC-10 SUT, and yes, indeed they sound better than HA1000, but not day and night difference on my system. Other cartridges I use are AT150mlx, Ortofon MC20 super, SPUs, and super low output Ortofon MC cartridges. 
Currently, H1202 is used with MC20 super and Live! MC-10 is used with SPU cartridges on Garrard 301 with two arms. I enjoy the difference of sounds from different cartridges/tonearms/turntables, and MC SUT and head amps.

In the meantime I have installed the Ikeda 9 Kawami in the Dynavector with a 15 gram headshell. The Dynavector arm is an unusual design, and what I found interesting is that there is a counterweight at the end of the main arm that has to be set in regards to cartridge weight, and then on the shorter arm there is a secondary counterweight that sets tracking force. On the main arm pillar there is a bearing that has a short range of vertical movement, even though the primary arm purpose is to travel in the horizontal range. Why there is a vertical travel with a bearing there I am not sure, but I followed the set up instructions for the cartridge weight and positioned the counterweight appropriately. 

Actually the Ikeda cartridge performed pretty well even though I had read posts where others have said it would not. I am not 100% sure its perfectly dialed in yet, although it tracks darn near everything perfectly. However, on Fleetwood Mac Dreams AP 45 release I have one phrase where I have a touch of sibilance. With the Ortofon MC200 installed I do not have this issue. So I still may have a bit of work to do. I wish there was a published procedure or SOP for setting one of these cartridges up. I imagine set up should work along the lines of a London Decca, so perhaps I will see what I can find out in a search about setting one of those cartridges up. 

The Dynavecotr is an unusual arm, and I wonder about its complicated nature at times. But I cannot argue with the results. I am pleased with the table and arm though. In listening to the Scheu and Dynavector with the Ikeda cartridge installed I am not sure the SOTA with SME V and Transfiguration is really any better. There are slight differences, but all in all the tables basically perform at the same level and have similar presentation. The Ortofon MC200 sounds quite nice and makes for an excellent casual play cartridge. My plan is to pick up a couple of good and modestly priced cartridges and use them in this manner, and then save the ZYX/Ikeda/Transfiguration for more serious listening sessions. 

I own 3 Dynavector tonearms, two are 505s and one is a 501.  I bought the DV505s because I was planning to create plinths out of solid slate, and I did not want to have to account for a removable tonearm mounting board or to cope with drilling a hole for a vertical shaft.  The DV505 works without either accommodation.  But I was also curious about its unique separation of the horizontal from the vertical pivot points.  The DV501 was essentially a stripped down version of the DV505 that lacks on-the-fly VTA adjustment and spring-loaded VTF.  The DV505 also has a long springy wire mounted out of sight under the arm wand, which is anchored only at one end so as to permit it to resonate; the idea was to soak up resonant energy that enters the arm wand.  It's tunable using an adjustable weight.  That feature is also lacking in the DV501.  Paradoxically, many end users feel that the DV501 is at least as good as or better than the DV505.  I have no dog in that fight.   I use one of the DV505s on my slate-plinthed Lenco, and I am very happy with it.  The other two DV tonearms are in mothballs. My long-winded point is that on none of my three DV tonearms does the horizontal bearing permit motion (of the arm wand) in the vertical plane.  You might check the horizontal bearing at the rear of the arm wand; it can get out of whack which may make it loose enough to permit the vertical motion you observe.

@lewm 
This is from the manual on the DV505. 

Horizontal balancing

Main arm is designed to maintain itself always level. But horizontal balancing is still necessary to distribute bearing load evenly and thereby realize best trackability. To achieve this balance, shell and sub weight alone normally suffice. First position sub weight A closest to the fore, or sub weight B at white-color balancing point mark, and then slide sub weight on scaled bar by one notch backward per every 5g added to cartridge weight. (In using any shell other than one supplied, add to or deduct from cartridge weight the difference in weight between these two shells.)

It's a bit confusing, but it essentially references how to set the counterweight on the main arm wand. It does have to be set, and you will see some travel on the primary arm wand in the vertical plane, but it's very limited. If a bearing was not there then why would you have adjustment of that large counterweight? 

The subweight is moveable fore and aft to balance the mass directly over the center of horizontal rotation. It is an approximate exercise, at best. But the actual horizontal bearing will only rotate in the horizontal plane. It’s true that you can tilt the whole shebang backward by about 30 degrees for various adjustments, but in operation the anterior vertical bearing will do all the work in the vertical plane. Its friction and mass are very much lower than what needs to be overcome if you tilt the whole assembly rearward on the posterior horizontal bearing. Unfortunately semantics get in the way of conveying my meaning as clearly as I would like. Photos would be better, if I knew how to post them.

@lewm 

No worries, I know exactly what you mean since I have set the arm up. It's interesting how the primary arm counterweight loads the horizontal bearing. I guess that degree of travel is a function of the horizontal bearings architecture. It makes sense that this bearing needs to be loaded so it's arc is flat in the horizontal plane, and the magnet assembly ensures that also. 

The Dynavector sure represents some unusual design decisions. But from what I hear it works very well, provides you have an unsuspended table. I guess the new generation Graham, Reed, Triplanar, and whatnot are supposed to be superior, but I have a suspicion it's not by a huge margin. I like what I hear from this arm with the cartridges I use. 

@neonknight 
Hi - the way to think about settng the main counterweight on the Dynavector arms is to think of a tightrope walker with a pole.
The purpose of adjusting this counterweight is to provide perfect balance over the top of the horizontal bearing with the chosen cartridge/headshell installed.

Because of the course markings on the counterweight positioning scale on the arm beam, I ignore them. Here is my recommended procedure -

I weigh the cartridge/headshell
Install the cartridge, align and set the tracking weight to zero.
Then I position the main counterweight roughly in position according to the scale on the beam.

Additionally, and this is most important, I then fine tune the exact position the counterweight by blowing on the arm ( sideways ). When perfect balance is achieved the arm will sway back and forth with just a puff of wind.

For the purpose of this last step I remove the platter so the arm can swing in and out without worrying about wiping out the cartridge.

Last time I set up my Dynavector, I stopped to have a coffee after performing this step. Whilst sitting off to the side, I noticed the arm was moving back and forth in the breeze coming in a side window. Its pretty impressive when you see it - it sums up how the split biaxial system is actually designed to work.

@dover 

Thanks for the description of your procedure, it sounds like pretty conventional set up technics for a standard arm, but they serve a different purpose with the Dynavector. Balancing the primary arm wand on the horizontal bearing makes a lot of sense, and I can see the usefulness of the technique. I will give it a go this weekend, and see if I can tease a bit more performance out of the table. The Dynavector is an excellent arm, it kind of surprises me that its become a forgotten choice for many in the analog world. Of course the latest DV507 is not a cheap arm by any stretch of the imaination, so that will limit its audience. I will say i am in awe of its level of engineering, especially considering its now a vintage arm that supposedly is dated due to its design and materials. Although from what I hear I would not describe it as such. 

The DV505 is still a high-end tonearm, but of course each individual owner will have his or her own idea of where it stands in the hierarchy of tonearms. I like mine very very much. In particular it is excellent in the bass region which is predictable from its construction. It is very flexible in the sense that I have mounted a wide range of very different cartridges in the tonearm, and it works well with all of them, provided I used an appropriate mass head shell with each. (although I own the OEM headshell, I hardly ever use it. I prefer other types. ) It is by no means out-dated, because since it was marketed, there have been no imitators, save for the later models 507 and 507 mk2. Also, materials science as regards the building of tonearms has not really been revolutionized since the 1980s. Despite what some modern tonearm manufacturers would have us think.

@lewm 

So which head shells have you used with the table? I have one OEM Dynavector that is 15 grams, and two LP Gear Zupreme which are 12 gram that I can install. I notice that 2Juki has some Dynavector head shells for the DV 505 and 507 on his site that are also in the 15 gram range. 

To be honest there is nothing meaningful I can fault with tone arm with, from what I hear it comes as close to neutral as I have experienced. I have not had a huge range of arms, but have used the Eminent Technology II, Acos GST 801, Riggle Engineering 12" Woody, Well Tempered Reference, SME V, Technics EPA 250, and SAEC 407N. I owned the Riggle for a long long time, same with the ET II. But the DV505 is a fine arm, and I find it encouraging that it is so versatile with markedly different cartridges. For instance I have used an Ikeda 9 Kawami on it, and an Ortofon MC200, and each one of them have performed remarkably well in this arm. 

Have you ever found out what the material of the arm is made from? It looks like its an aluminum alloy? I am fortunate that mine is in near perfect condition. I have seen examples from Japan that have quite a bit more wear or imperfections to the finish. 

I have to admit that I look at the DV507 and think about acquiring one. I can fit two arms on the Scheu table, and another one might be acquired some time in the future. 

I would guess they’re made mostly of brushed aluminum and stainless steel, here and there. The obvious improvements available in the 507 are magnetic vs string anti-skate and a superior mechanism for VTA adjustment. There could be more improvements that are less obvious.