What MC for $1,000-$2,000?

What I settled on is a Benz Micro Ruby 3 factory new re-tip for $1,750.00. This cartridge sounds wonderful and works just fine on my SME III tonearm. So, it is a far cry from the Denon 103R and matches(if not smoother sounding than)my AC-2 Accuphase.

One product I didn't get a change to hear is "The Voice" brand cartridges. Any comments on those? I may send my second arm to be rewired by them and get a moving iron version as a back-up if I get a chance to listen to one. And yes, this design should be the best match (on paper) for my tonearm.

Well here are my thought so far;

1.0 The change from the 103R to the AC-2 in the same table is night and day in clarity. The SAME set-up on both. I'd be hard pressed to say that the T.table and tonearm is the "major" culprit. Minor, yes, major, no. I am not hearing minor nuances in sound. It's like a pair of JBL L36's verses Advents. The room, stands, speaker wire, or electronics won't swap what you prefer to hear.

The extremes of audio are fun, because they are so nuance that you can always feel right about, with the changes being so small as to be less significant overall. But if I change my speaker or cartridge...my wife will KNOW from the change in the fundamental nature of the stereo's sound. Has she ever heard wire, stands, line cords, platter mats, amplifiers...no, the nuances are too small.

Yes, a heavier arm is better for the MC pick-ups, but an AC-2 is not what I would call very "low" complinace. Yes, the DENON 103r is (about 1/3 as compliant). One of the major factors in all this is indeed the compliance of the cartridge more closely matching tonearm's range. So, I am looking to keep thing at or near the AC-2. I 100% agree that that detail isn't probably a detail.

The series III arm can be set-up to be more "massive" with additional counter weights and paddle sizes to get it to the "OK" range.

But to say a T.table outweighs a cartridge is like saying speaker stands outweight the speaker. They are important, but in no way have I EVER heard a magic T.table and tone arm make a mediocer cartridge sound good. SLIGHTLY better, but not a big jump to anywhere. Is the track more important than the runner?

2.0 True, MC cartridges break in some. What I hear is far from "break-in". The basic 103r signature is simply unacceptable long term. The sound is far and away from breaking in to even come remotely close to the AC-2.

3.0 I sold hi-fi for seven years through school, and I NEVER NEVER heard a great piece of gear sound WORSE than a so-so piece of gear that was benefitted by being stuck on a better turntable or wired better, or you name it. Yes, we tried, being dirt poor, to make a "super" system out of cheap designed gear. The better stuff stayed better, and the so-so stuff got better but was never great. A crappy piece of gear doesn't turn like magic with the right cable, platter cover, stand, line cord ETC. Improve, yes (sometimes) but there are no leaps in sound that eclipse the mechanics at each end.

4.0 A speaker or cartridge (yes, with the the tone arm) is a hugely mechanical device limited predominantly by its built-in mechanics. You can't change that. About all you can do is provide a basis to allow what is there to be the best it can be (tonearm). But, most of what you hear is built-in to the cartridge (especially sonic timber, which is as much a material puzzle as mechanics, they tend to go with one another).

My Quatros "broke-in" over time, but trust me, they NEVER sounded like my 1979 B&W 801's. I don't care what I do to either speaker, they are not going to marry the same sound, ever. Oh you can do things to make either better, but far from the same.

A good cartridge will sound better on an ideal set-up, but it will still sound basically very good on what I have today. The bath water doesn't make the baby.

I all ready had added mass with the 103R (black top plate on the tonearm head). It didn't even touch the sound quality issue I hear with it. Yes, the bass got tighter, ut the mids on up are just not what the Quatros are capable of.

There are no super "serious" issues with my set-up, except the 103r cartridge seems much less "open" sounding in general than the AC-2. I don't think that the equipment will allow even a 100% exact set-up on a 103r to match the AC2 in midrange detail.

But the reviews are 30:1 that says the 103r is a great deal on most speakers, so I took a gamble that I could fake it till I make it on the set-up. No, not 100% extraction of performance, but 80% or so. Nope, didn't do it. Some is imdeed the 103r, and some is indeed my tonearm.

I've mixeda and matched equipment for 30 years, and I've never seen a so-so product eclipse a better one unless the match was simply so gross as to not be worth doing. The 103R with a 25G weight, large paddle, max mass in the counter balancer, and 2.2 grams tracking force isnt miles away from where the 104r needs to be. Exact, no. Terrible, no. My problem was how good the AC-2 is, and I never knew it. My bad.

The compliance measurement is interesting as it doesn't seem to be very linear with frequency or how would you get..."It's more like 15 for the AC2 vs. 9 for the 103R. The 103D works out to 21.6 on an apples to apples basis." I'm sure you meabt 1.66 or so, right? or is it that gossly non lineaer? Something is amiss?

Any way you slice it, the AC-2 is still really good sounding on a SME type III at 2.0 grams. The stylus rack angle (what people thing VTA is,usually around 16-20 degrees, but it isn't) is set to 92 degrees, or close to it "playing" it by ear.

But, I do agree that the 103r is out for all the reasons I "hear" and you "measure". So, I took what everyone said, and went where no one said to go;

Soundsmith The Voice Ebony Phono Cartridge
$2,199.00
Compliance: - Select - High Medium
Loading: - Select - 100pf 400pf
$2,199.00$2,199.00 Soundsmith Aida Phono

This cartridge is smack in the sweet spot for my SME series III tonearm, and price range. Has anyone used this cartridge, and subjectively what was the general sound? Forward, bright, soft, ETC? The two reviews I've read are fovarable. Renmember, I looked at MC designs because the MM amd MI designs were sort of left behind a little more than MC for various reasons, mostly emotional)and some mechanical.

I bough the Quatros for the same reason I tried the 103r, sounding good isn't always throwing money at the problem. A decent design doesn't have to cost a lot. And, a MC isn't always better than a good MM or MI design. The soundsmith seems to be a well done moving iron design that falls right into the best my tonearm can offer. I think, on paper, you all would agree with this decision so far? So you all nudged me in the right direction, but I never really heard what product was in that direction. Still haven't.

So, I was hoping that a voice would have enunciated that this somewhatt rare cartridge exists. I admit, I never heard of it till a friend suggested a GRADO on steroids! It is essentially a GRADO type design basis, and one that seems historically good.

Is the ebony that much better than the AIDA?

Best, to all that have chimed in.

Constraint is relative. To go with a heavy arm just puts the constraints somewhere else, and my wallet, too, as I'd have to buy two components verses one.

I listened to a well broken-in 103R on a heavy arm, and it was better, but it still had a more opaque midrange sound like music was coming off a flat plate. Highes were noticably not as open, either. I stuck my so-so AC-2 set-up T.table in and the world opened up again. I'm sorry guys, but the 103r is OK, but not much better than the price in my listening. I have no beef with DENON, but the AC-2 is still WAY better sounding even in my tone arm. Sure, it cost more. But we're talking SOUND right now. I can do much better, even with my tone arm, than the 103r...or even my AC-2. I would not settle for the 103R even with a heavier arm!

The DENON is quiet (conical stylus tracks way less of the record surface), however. And the bass was always nice. It just lacks clarity and dynamics in the midrange and open extension on top.

I liked my old 103D mostly because it was running DQ-10's and it's been years since I listened to one. What I do know, is that the AC-2 kicked it out of bed A to B compared on that same system and arm, which is WHY I have the AC-2 today. I was hoping that the "improved" 103r would narrow the gap. I think with what I have heard now, I'd say that the stock 103r is WORSE than a stock 103D. The Quatros are much less forgiving than the DQ-10, too.

"Keep in mind that Denon publishes their dynamic compliance specs relative to 100Hz. The actual compliance at 10Hz would be considerable higher than the spec at 100Hz. Its this little discrepancy that explains why the 103 and 103R perform better than expected in lower mass arms. The actual compliance at 10Hz is something more like 10-11 X 10-6 cm/Dyne for the 103/103R from; http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/47/473022.html

My old lit for my 103D shows 12x10-6 cm/Dyne on the 103D @ 100Hz so taking your 1.8 times that is ineed about 21.6 cm / Dyne compared to my Accupase at 15 x 10-6 cm/Dyne. Also, to get 103R's working, most get the conical stylus replaced, too. Even Soundsmith reworks the 103r's stylus and suspension. I sure do not hear, or agree with the statement that the 103r, "perform better than expected" on low mass arms..I think you can agree with that.

So much for the 103D or 103r, I'm wanting better than that, it is out there, and the AC-2 says so even at 15 x 10-6 cm/ Dyne on my arm. THAT I hear everyday.

So I have yet to hear a PEEP about what to do other than fan boy the 103r or make it work. I don't WANT to "make" the 103r work. I've hear it (I have one to sell). If you think that's the end all to your knowledge, fine. I already know that there is better out there if my AC-2 is strutting it stuff like it is. I want to hear about THOSE options!

I'm with what my AC-2 does on my SME III, it kicks butt on Quatro Wood signature II's!. And probably with a 50-50 set-up, even.

Sure, a pefect set-up is nice, but then again, why on earth do we listen to records with the turntable in the same darn room! You shake, so does the tone arm, and it is defenseless against that. I'd say that that out weights about ANYTHING that the record grove is doing to the inertia in the tone arm or visa versa. A tone arm is designed to stabilize what the stulus is doing in the groove. It sure wasn't made to defeat the kind of bass the Quatros put out. And in light of this, the SME III with the AC-2 sounds crisp and tight (it shouldn't!) somehow.

I've looked at tone arms and that is a messy situation. I can blindly "buy" a tonearm, but you can't "shop" for the right tonearms as there is precious little data to support what they are intended to run well based on their mass and adjustment ranges. Some Sweet spot (there is indeed one) on cartridge weight and compliance would be nice. But nope, just useless data relative to what arm to match with what cartridge. Why should you have to guru shop for a tonearm? The operational data is certainly there, somewhere. it should be easier to find. I can't even tell SME III is really meant to do, and with what.

For now, I'll keep my Ariston RD II s and SME III and set my sights on more compliant cartridges.