|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
205.188.117.12
I have a B&O RX-2 with the MMC-4 cartridge. Using the same vinyl,
it doesn't seem to have the sound stage that my long departed Dual with the V15 had. Can anyone speak to the differences between the MMC 1 through 5 cartridges and how they compare with the Shure,
using the same equipment? Don't know whether to sell the B&O and get a Dual, or get a better cartridge for the B&O. thank's;
Follow Ups:
A healthy MMC-4 completely trounces a V-15. Unfortunately, as they age, their performance degrades until they sound like a "hi-fi" am transistor radio! Their flagship cartridges are among the very best!The replacements from Sound-Smith seem to have a longer lifespan.
Also, the RX-2 and the rest of its generation are inferior to their predecessors.
I had an original, slightly modified RX with an MMC-2. It originally came with an MMC-5 that was past its prime. It sounded like sh*t! It had a flat, undefined soundstage with poor imaging to boot.
Once modified (mil-spec silver litz wire, no bottom cover, cones coupling plinth to 1/4inch thick granite slab that sat ontop of small sandbox, Michell clamp, fresh MMC-2), it easily bettered all of the hi-end tables that I had used previously, except it ultimately lacked their weight and heft.
Today, I recommend using the Sound-Smith B&O cartridges with a Pro-ject Xperience or a mid-grade Micro Seiki. They mate best with light to medium mass tonearms like my Grace 707 MKII or a Micro CF-1/2/MA-707, and optimally with the arm on the Xperience (light counterweight).
Thank's, George. Well, My first set-up was the Dual/V15
with a Nikko receiver and store branded speakers that come to think
of it looked suspiciously like the A-25's. I still have the
' Dukes of Dixieland ' vinyl and to my memory sounded better on that
outfit as compared to the B&O MMC 4, 3012A, Boston 3-way's I'm
using now. But, I can't lay the blame 100% on the turntable, but you have to wonder considering the rest of the system. I'm not inclined to go the DIY route, don't WANT to get that bug, and besides, I'm lucky if I get the interconnects right. No point in
spending $ if as another contributer claims, this is a low end
B&O. Are you saying that the MMC 1-5, or all the MMC series cartridges fail to age gracefully? Soundsmith doesn't re-build the
MMC 20 series, or the MMC 5-3. It may just be time to say
goodbye to the B&O. I spoke to Shure and they say that their cartridges for the most part don't degrade like that.
All of the original MMC's degrade rather rapidly. Both your table and cartridge are likely at fault.
But SoundSmith DOES sell NEWLY manufactured versions of the MC20 carts... their 20EN clone being the most reasonable choice.
--
simul justus et peccator
This is an interesting situation. I have had many B&O carts and they all image very well re:soundstage. In my experience, and in my humble opinion, I always thought that the Shures did not image well.
The Shures always had good width and height, but hardly any depth.
Maybe, that B&O needs a slightly older model to replace it, like their MMC20EN or the top of that line, the MMC20CL. These were the preferred models, before the smaller MMC single number series.
If you do get another standard mount table, might I suggest the early stereo B&O SP-II or the later SP-12 ? That early stereo SP-II was marketed as the Dynaco/B&O Stereodyne or Stereodyne II. They are quite enjoyable, even today. Another fantastic sounding early stereo cart, that I use very often, is the Pickering/Stanton 380, one of the sweetest sounding 3Dimensional cartridges of all time.
One aspect of the early stereo carts to remember is that most were sperical/conicals and tracked at 2-3 grams. It is their sound that makes them competitive. I can almost guarantee that if you get a Dual table and a Pickering/Stanton 380, you will never miss your Shure or B&O again. Enjoy...
Isn't 3 grams hell on the vinyl though?
Thank's, Tranny. As I told George, Soundsmith doesn't re-build
those 20 series and upgrading to a better B&O seems pointless. So
far, I'm coming up with the Dual 701 or 721 as a couple of the
most desirable. I guess the 1229's are a choice if you don't place
much faith in rumble stats.
These old Duals are getting pretty long in the tooth. Most of the ones I have seen lately have some rather obvious problems.If you want a true hi-end table that will likely last forever, look for a midline Micro Seiki like the ones listed at eBay below.
The BL-10x is a special model. I encourage you to immediatly purchase it if you have the money. The second-listed DD-40 is a fair price with its included box and manual, and a damn good table to boot.
Thank you. Never heard of this line. Is it Nipon? How old
and how do you rate their various tables since a couple are advertised as ' Vintage ' I guess the current price is fair if the table is clearly superior to the aging Duals and Thorens and won't need a re-build which is likely with the others. Won't buy from
hidden bidders, though. Could be the owner bidding to jack up the price.
Made in Japan by the finest turntable and bearing manufacturer in the world. All the ones listed are '80's vintage.They are certainly better than your typical Dual or Thorens. Don't know what to tell you about the blind bidders though.
A LOOOOONG time ago, I replaced a Shure V-15 III TT (Philips) with a Beogram 1700 with the MMC20CL. I found the B&O to be smoother, and more "transparent" sounding... at that time.I picked up a second TT for my office last year (Thorens TD-145), and have been listening to a Shure 97xE quite a bit and enjoying its "crisper" sound. Also have a Grado Green, which to my ears sounds more like my MMC20EN cart (not quite like the CL, to me).
--
simul justus et peccator
Yeah, PM; the Thoren's are popular, and expensive.
AND, people are still replacing arms and such. They
say that speakers are 60% of a system, and I wonder how much
of a role the cartridge plays?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: