MC for MusicHall MMF2.2

Ed,

You are a professional reviewer and of all people should be aware that one of the changes made in going from the Music Hall 2.1 to the 2.2 was the tone arm. The new arm has a one piece Headshell and arm formed from a larger diameter aluminum alloy tube also stainless/sapphire pivot bearings and rudimentary VTA adjustment capability. No it's not an SME but is not bad at all and certainly can accommodate and show the advantages of a moderately priced moving coil cartridge. In fact it works quite well with my Denon DL160 and my older Audio Technica AT30 HE. Jazzhowell already did the right thing by adding the speedbox and he can also add an acrylic platter as a further worthwhile upgrade without spending a lot of money. I also own a Linn LP12 that currently has a Sumiko Premier MMT arm, Hercules speed regulator board and a a Sony XL44s LOMC. Is it better? Yes, but it costs 6 times as much and has it's own set of issues with such problems as footfalls and isolation.
Oh, and the Music Hall platter is non ferrous and not a problem with strong magnets in a cartridge (the Philips GA 212/312 were the last turntables I can remember that had a problem with moving coils due to a steel platter).

Gerald,
Thanks for adding some important information. I haven't seen the 2.2 myself but the arm does look like a decent Pro-Ject aluminum tonearm. It appears to be a big step up from the original arm on the 2.1, which I used for a while.

I mentioned the ferrous platter only as a warning; if the 2.2 has a non-ferrous platter then it's good to go with MC cartridges. And the acrylic platter sounds like a good upgrade.

If the upgrades from the 2.1 are as they appear, then the 2.2 seems like it's not a bad turntable for the money, especially considering it's new and low maintenance.

Tom

01-31-09: Geraldm121
Ed,

You are a professional reviewer and of all people should be aware that one of the changes made in going from the Music Hall 2.1 to the 2.2 was the tone arm. The new arm has a one piece Headshell and arm formed from a larger diameter aluminum alloy tube also stainless/sapphire pivot bearings and rudimentary VTA adjustment capability.

I don't care if they sprinkled fairy dust on it, too. I appreciate you brining the changes to my attention but all that was moot the second I heard that Jazzhowell has a Linn Axis sitting in his closet, and all it needed was $240 in repairs to get it going again.

Debating the merits of the Music Hall 2.1 versus the 2.2 is kinda like fighting over how much better the 2009 Hyundai Excel is compared to the 2002. I'm sure the new one is much improved but would you drive a 2009 Excel if you had a 2002 BMW 540i parked in the driveway that needed only a minor repair to get it going again? And, in the long run, which is going to hold up better and retain more of its resale value?

As good as the 2.2 arm may be now, I doubt it's a match for a Linn Basik, which was still a modest arm, but taken as a package with the Axis, which has a FAR superior motor, electronics, deck and platter, well, I know what I'd go with.

Having owned both a Linn Axis and Music Hall 2.1, they really would need to dip the Music Hall in magic juice to make it perform anywhere near an Axis. It's a throwaway. A surprisingly good throwaway for the money, but still a throwaway. Nobody in their right mind throws away a Linn or a Rega or even an old Dual.

And as far as being low maintenance, they would also have had to send the Lexus quality control team in there to fix the factory. My 2.1 fell to pieces in a matter of weeks. Music Direct, to their credit, took it back. What we're talking about here is a basic design that goes back to the Communist era in the Eastern bloc. It was designed to be a cheap, bare bones table for poor people. Granted, the 2.2 is a much improved animal, but still.

Now, if this was Jazzhowell's first and/or only table, I'd have more encouraging words. But he has a really nice table collecting dust. I say, let's get that bad boy running again! (Or ship it to me and I'll fix it for myself!)

Ed,

I never suggested he should not repair the Linn. Absolutely it should be repaired but telling Jazzhowell that the MMF2.2 could not handle a DL160 and that he should sell a perfectly good turntable and take a loss because you had issues with a previous model is just wrong. You did not have a 2.2 you had a 2.1 they are not the same especially regarding the tone arms. Also saying that the Axis will sound better than the Music Hall is questionable as that would at least depend on how the suspension (which is quite similar to the MMF2.2 btw) has held up and whether his table has the (better) Akito or the not so great LVX tonearm. As far as the Music Hall being "a Thowaway" I listened to that same statement 30+ years ago about the AR XA with it's crappy clock motor that could not possibly last (I have 2 one of which is approaching it's 50th birthday and still functions fine)and I would be willing to bet the number of still functioning AR XA's is 10 times that of Duals of the same vintage.

My apologies,I just checked to be sure and I was wrong on the platter material. It is ferrous and quite magnetic. So you would have to upgrade to an acrylic platter to accommodate a moving coil. The difference from the 2.1 is that it appears to to have a coating of damping material on it. Again my error I should have looked for the original platter last night as mine has the acrylic installed at the moment so the DL160 is not a problem for me.