Ortofon mc 10

[chelsea]

After a cheap mc cart that is light enough for a sme 3009.
Was thinking mc 10.
Please pm if you have one for sale.

[Rare Bird]

Um not a great idea imho..

[Dominic Harper]

Depends which 3009 it is.

[peter j]

After a cheap mc cart that is light enough for a sme 3009.
Was thinking mc 10.
Please pm if you have one for sale.

I used an MC10 Super in a 3009 s11 improved detachable headshell for many years. I was very happy with it.I would probably still be using it now if it hadn't got broken as a result of my own stupidity.I broke it while fixing it back into it's transit box during the course of trying another cartridge.The other cartridge was not as good as the MC10 to my ears so I sold it at a considerable loss.I ended up buying a much cheaper cartridge,a 2M red,which I am using now and again I'm very happy with the sound.
Pete.

[chelsea]

It is a s2 improved.
Thought the 10 would work ok with it.

[Dominic Harper]

Is it fixed headshell or detachable? Fixed will be pushing it a bit but detachable will be better as the arm has a bit more mass.

[DSJR]

If it's the 'improved' arm, I'd suggest the FD200 damper with baby-oil instead of the thick goo SME supplied. The 'SME black-tac' in the headshell is also essential if it's the SME original and I'd probably consider getting AO's Johnnie to foam-fill the arm tube as well...

The only MC I can think of that would have the 'correct' compliance is the Denon 304, which also tracks at 1.25g or so. The MC10 is a great universal model so should be alright, although the fixed head version of this arm was intended for 1g tracking high compliance fixed-coil cartridges and works well with such types since they don't 'stress' the structure of the arm.

[Dominic Harper]

Not sure what you mean by stressing the arm?

[chelsea]

Fixed headshell

[Rare Bird]

It is a s2 improved.


If Stu has written it right

S2 Improved is a detachable headshell {Approx 12 grammes mass}, Series II Improved is fixed {Approx 9 grammes mass}. This is how it was stated back on the original sales litrature.

[Dominic Harper]

In that case id avoid using a MC cartridge

[chelsea]

Is the sme black tac used for weight or taking vibration away from the light headshell?

[chelsea]

In that case id avoid using a MC cartridge

Ok thanks.
I have a few mm carts so will try them on it.

[DSJR]

Is the sme black tac used for weight or taking vibration away from the light headshell?

Supposedly for taking vibration away. A small rectangle of card-table baize between cartridge and shell does similar things for the V15 III and ADC XLM series and serves to take the 'edge' away from the upper midband this fixed-head version of the arm can suffer from.

Do please note, the fixed shell Series 2 was NOT inteneded for cartridge 'rolling.' The wires are very fragile and very easily broken. SME did beef both the shell and its wires up later in production, but if you're unlucky, re-wiring isn't too much of a pain. Mine has the pro-ject wiring loom fitted (with the original black SME earth wire still in situ) and it seems to work fine, since this was never a 'foo' tonearm and doesn't deserve to be treated as such IMO.

[walpurgis]

I'm not in favour of using anything flexible between the cartridge and headshell. It introduces a secondary compliance and has unpredictable results, certainly the arm/cartridge assembly stiffness and integration is affected. The Cartridge Man Isolator is a case in point, some people swear by them. I would not dream of using one.

The SME Blacktac is basically a coupling aid and can damp the interface between cartridge and headshell as long as the mounting screws are properly tight, there should be no flexibility. Blutac can be used instead.

[chelsea]

The carts i have are AT 110e and Nagoaka 321c (new)

[Rare Bird]

You are in the same boat Compliance wise with the AT. Never heard of that Nag cartridge!

[chelsea]

You in the same boat Compliance wise with the AT. Never heard of that Nag cartridge!

Me neither until i saw it for sale on ebay.
Thought it maybe worth a punt.

Guessing it must be one of there ultra budget range.
Have a mp 10 or 11 here but stylus is shot.

[Rare Bird]

What i can make out that Nag looks to be an ok Cart but the Compliance is around 6x

[chelsea]

Will that be no good then?

[Rare Bird]

That is worse than the MC's :eyebrows:

However i have had some real disasterarse technical combinations in my SME S2 Imp that worked fine, you can but try..

[chelsea]

Maybe i should go for a shure and be done.

[walpurgis]

If your arm mass is not great enough, you can always add a bit of mass to the headshell. Try a 5p coin held on with Blutac, not elegant, but it can work.

[chelsea]

I do have a 5g copper weight if needed.

[Rare Bird]

That would take the head shell mass up to around the Mass of the detachable head shell version..

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TECHNICS-HEADSHELL-WEIGHT-3g-SPACER-SL-1210-1200-MK2-MK3-MK5-M5G-HEAD-SHELL-/151080776479?pt=UK_Sound_Vision_Performance_DJ_Par ts_Accessories&hash=item232d1db31f

[Wakefield Turntables]

I used the MC10 on a SME3009 and whilst not the best sound I have ever heard it was surprisingly good. The Shure carts are going up in price whilst the MC10 is bargain basement territory (well in my eyes anyway). I'd see if you could get one cheaply have a play around and then sell on if you dont like it. It may work out cheaper than a Shure. If you cant be arsed then just buy the Shure.

[DSJR]

You'll then need the heavier counterweight which do come up occasionally. The tube is low mass and may well need damping internally, hence my suggestion above.

[Oldpinkman]

I happen to have an MC 10 although it has been uncared for in an old shoe box and I couldnt swear for its condition. It weighs 7.5g. The effective mass of the SME - if I have the right arm is 9.5g. So total effective mass is 17g. The MC 10 compliance is 14cu. So the system resonance is about 9Hz. That should be ok. Having used it in a mission 774 with an effective mass about 4gm lighter, resonance was nearer 11.5 hz I can confirm you shouldnt have an issue with the basic resonance. As geoff has pointed out you could add mass at the headshell, but that is only going to push the resonance lower. I reckon you are ok where you are. The issue you may hit is bearing quality - I think they are knife edge on the SME and that may give you an issue no amount of fannying around with headshell damping is going to deal with. But I would be surprised if it wasn't a workable combination. The shure is sure to be a good match - but depends what sound you are looking for.

[DSJR]

Total arm/cartridge mass isn't the same as effective mass I'm afraid, although I can't give you the maths to work it out. The SME was designed in this version for the 50CU fixed coils like the ADC 26 and siblings, XLM family, Shure V15 III, Empire 1000ZE/X and 2000Z, Stanton 681EEE and the then new Ortofon M15e series. At this time in the very early 70's, moving coil types were a bit of an old fashioned anachronism and people were ditching their SL15e's for the latest high compliance 1g or less trackers. Remember, an SL15e wouldn't have sounded anywhere near as good as it could now, with a proper modern (or modern plinthed vintage) tonearm and turntable setup and modern takes on step-up ideas..

My advice would be to try for an earlier SME, or the Acos Lustre model, which was good if not as revered at the time.

[Rare Bird]

Aye jus ger thi sen er Shure V15 III be dun wee eet loike :eyebrows:

:sofa:

[Oldpinkman]

Total arm/cartridge mass isn't the same as effective mass I'm afraid, although I can't give you the maths to work it out. The SME was designed in this version for the 50CU fixed coils like the ADC 26 and siblings, XLM family, Shure V15 III, Empire 1000ZE/X and 2000Z, Stanton 681EEE and the then new Ortofon M15e series. At this time in the very early 70's, moving coil types were a bit of an old fashioned anachronism and people were ditching their SL15e's for the latest high compliance 1g or less trackers. Remember, an SL15e wouldn't have sounded anywhere near as good as it could now, with a proper modern (or modern plinthed vintage) tonearm and turntable setup and modern takes on step-up ideas..

My advice would be to try for an earlier SME, or the Acos Lustre model, which was good if not as revered at the time.

you're quite right. total arm mass is a good bit more. i was quoting the arm effective mass per the manufacturer. to that you add cartridge mass which is as near effective mass as makes sod-all difference. so if you don't know formula - how would you calculate the resonance to give advice?

[Barry]

Total arm/cartridge mass isn't the same as effective mass I'm afraid, although I can't give you the maths to work it out. The SME was designed in this version for the 50CU fixed coils like the ADC 26 and siblings, XLM family, Shure V15 III, Empire 1000ZE/X and 2000Z, Stanton 681EEE and the then new Ortofon M15e series. At this time in the very early 70's, moving coil types were a bit of an old fashioned anachronism and people were ditching their SL15e's for the latest high compliance 1g or less trackers. Remember, an SL15e wouldn't have sounded anywhere near as good as it could now, with a proper modern (or modern plinthed vintage) tonearm and turntable setup and modern takes on step-up ideas..

My advice would be to try for an earlier SME, or the Acos Lustre model, which was good if not as revered at the time.

The concept of tonearm effective mass is explained here :http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?22373-Arm-cartridge-resonance

The mass of the Ortofon MC10 is 7g and has a dynamic compliance of 15cu.

In an SME (imp) fixed headshell arm (effective mass 6.5g), the resonant frequency will be 11.2Hz.
In an SME (imp) detachable shell arm (effective mass 9.5g) the resonant frequency will be 10.1Hz.
In an SME 3009/S2 arm (effective mass 12.5g), the resonant frequency will be 9.3Hz.

All of these figures are ideal.

Back in the early '80s I used an Ortofon MC20 in an SME 3009/S2 (that is, the predecessor to the 'Improved' versions) without problems. The calculated LF resonance for this combination is 7.2Hz, however I also used the FD200 dashpot damper, so the LF resonance was probably more like 8.7Hz. This combination didn't last long, as I preferred the results obtained from the Ortofon SL15E and SL15E Mk.II; models which the MC20 superseded.

[Oldpinkman]

Thanks Barry. Nice to have my sums confirmed. And that for purposes of determining resonance cartridge mass is all effective mass. Strictly the required mass is the effective mass of the tonearm and cartridge combined - so add cartridge actual mass to the quoted arm effective mass is near as dammit. (Bit trickier with Arthur's arms cos the effective mass changes with tracking force). Also very confusing with the Dynavector since the effective mass in the vertical plane is completely different from the horizontal effective mass.

Effective mass is calculated by determining the moment of inertia around the pivot for the effective tonearm length, which is most easily done by calculating for the counterweight (concentrated mass) given that the arm tube has to be the same to balance it - but I always just trust the manufacturer quoted figure. :)

[Oldpinkman]

You have to add the cartridge mass to the arm effective mass to calculate the resonance. Going with 9.5gm arm effective mass I believe the Shure V15-iii is 6.2g giving total 15.7g with 23cu gives a system resonance of about 8 to 8.5Hz - again within the recommended band,albeit close to the bottom. The audio technica has the same mass (within .1gm) and same compliance 15cu as the MC10 and so the same resonance at 16gm total effective mass of just over 10Hz. They are all fine.

Can't find a spec for the shure 97xe but I would guess its compliance without the damper is similar to the V15 - in the twenties, and so will be fine in the arm like that. Avoid very low compliance MC's - mainly for the bearing strain rather than the resonance issue

[Rare Bird]

This arm & the 'V15/3' were made for each other imho :eyebrows:

Always amazes me how Audio guys make things so damn complicated :rolleyes:

[DSJR]

They do, but have to find out for themselves I'm afraid. By the way, the MC10 wasn't too well reviewed, but the SUPER version was, whatever they did, it seemed to work :)

Substitute an XLM II or III for the V15 III (not so much the later HE or MR version), and you have some magic to be made ;)

[chelsea]

I don't really like the v15 that much hence looking elsewhere.

[Rare Bird]

I have a Stanton '681' cart with Pickering 'D625' that sounds good in this arm

[Oldpinkman]

This arm & the 'V15/3' were made for each other imho :eyebrows:

Always amazes me how Audio guys make things so damn complicated :rolleyes:

You should know better. But let me do it simple one more time. The system will develop a main resonance - a frequency at which relatively small amounts of energy input cause big movements. If that resonance is too high you will hear it as audio signal. If its too low it will interfere with low frequency record warps Well they interfere with it. The resonance arises because you have a mass and a compliance (bounciness). Imagine a fishing rod with a weight. If you wiggle the rod gently there will be a speed (frequency) at which it almost seems to keep wiggling without any effort at all. Too make it wiggle faster (or slower) requires more effort - you are almost fighting it. (Try attaching a heavy rubber to a bendy ruler with a rubber band for the same effect). If you make the weight heavier, the speed at which it continues to wiggle with little effort becomes slower (the resonant frequency will be lower). If you have a more bendy (higher compliance) rod the same applies. Stiffer fishing rod gives higher resonant frequency. (The cartridge compliance, mass and arm effective mass are all quoted by manufacturers)

The alternative method - "I've tried it and it works" is also valid, but subject to greater subjectivity - which in its extreme form is known as bullshit. And on a forum which believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden, the "Don't ask me why - it just does " method is not for me.

If there is anyone really technical about to jump - I know that the effective mass in the calculation Barry and I used isnt strictly right, since the added cartridge mass is at the extreme of the effective length from the fulcrum point - the calculated resonance will be erroneously high - but if you work with a band of 9Hz to 13Hz you are pretty safe. :)

For what little its worth I really quite liked the MC10. It's just that the technics U205 swept away all challengers. Not suggesting it's a giant among cartridges, but a decent little performer for the price. Worked well in the Mission arm. (No science there - straight bullshit - well subjective opinion. How do you evaluate that advice? :doh:)

[Barry]

If there is anyone really technical about to jump - I know that the effective mass in the calculation Barry and I used isnt strictly right, since the added cartridge mass is at the extreme of the effective length from the fulcrum point - the calculated resonance will be erroneously high - but if you work with a band of 9Hz to 13Hz you are pretty safe.

The effective mass of the pickup arm is the moment of inertia about the pivot point as seen at the headshell end of the arm, divided by the square of the pivot to stylus length. As I commented in footnote [1] of the article I cited, there are several assumptions made:

(1) The stylus position is known with respect to the cartridge fixing points in the headshell,

(2) The effective mass quoted, assumes the counterweight is positioned at the mean point of the counterbalance range,

and pertinent to the above comment:

(3) The mass of the cartridge is treated as being concentrated as a point mass, at the stylus. That way the cartridge mass can be readily added to the effective mass of the arm.

Again, as I said in the article, all calculations should be regarded only as a guide. The only real way to measure the LF resonant frequency is to use a test record. But if the results of such calculations, lay in the range 8-12Hz, I wouldn't worry about it.