-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
Cartridge Recommendations to go with Marantz 6350 TT and Marantz 2235 Pre?
Register to hide this ad
ctjetta
It's not a perfect world
Without any direct experience, the 2M Blue is supposed to be a big step up from the Red. As well, the AT 540 series is said to be the sweet spot in their MM lineup.
Those should be a couple of options. I'm sure other AKers have more suggestions to offer.
Do you have any vintage carts on hand? It's possible that really good aftermarket stylus or a retip may be a good alternative.
But, that's a whole new rabbit hole of options.
Those should be a couple of options. I'm sure other AKers have more suggestions to offer.
Do you have any vintage carts on hand? It's possible that really good aftermarket stylus or a retip may be a good alternative.
But, that's a whole new rabbit hole of options.
Try the ML version
tlite
Active Member
Definitely was considering the ML stylus upgrade! YouTube I couldn't hear a HUGE difference between that and the VM95E (
Also thought about the Ortofon Blue stylus upgrade but it gets mixed reviews.
Another one in the running has been the Nagaoka MP-110 as sounds like it deals with noise/distortion really well and I do have a few older records this would be nice for.
Also just curious what is a good match for the Marantz gear and don't want to 'over-upgrade' beyond the capabilities of the turntable and receiver.
I bought a 6300 tt new in the mid 70's. Your tonearm appears different than the 6300. But if you have that massive headshell like the 6300 that weighs 13.4 g then I advise you to get something in the 7 g range; that will lower the effective tonearm mass and enable more compliant carts, including your VM95E
My new Technics came with an Ortofon 2M Red, I didn't like it. I tried a Blue which I also did not like. It performs well with a Nagaoka MP-200 which is a bit above your 300.00. A MP-110 might fit the bill.
Mike
Mike
tlite
Active Member
I do have the massive headshell, but with the AT using the headshell that came with it- not sure the weight but I'll check when I get home. So... the adjustable tracking force of the tonearm counterweight wouldn't offset for this?
Yes, lower headshell weight would place your counterweight closer to the fulcrum lowering your tonearm effective mass.
When it comes to vinyl, it's almost always worth the extra! The 2M Red never quite sounded right to me. The word was that it's a slightly warm sounding cartridge. It's not, it's a modern sounding cartridge, with a stylus that is heavy, slow, and thick sounding. The lighter, faster, Blue stylus is enough better than the Red that it's almost like a different cartridge.
The MP-200 has a pretty good reputation. Let us know what you think, after it has some hours on it.....
The MP-200 has a pretty good reputation. Let us know what you think, after it has some hours on it.....
tlite
Active Member
Will do! I'm definitely keeping the AT though and may try the ML stylus at some point, but hoping the MP-200 does the trick.
I think it's always good to have an assortment of cartridges, or styli. Among others, I have a 2M Bronze, and can run the Red or Blue on the same generator. The Red, in this configuration, is pretty much identical to the 2M Silver. It's a bit less thick sounding, but still not something I want to listen to for much, other than grading vinyl.
tlite
Active Member
First of all, thank you for sending me down a new rabbithole that I didn't know existed until your post.
Second, any recommendations for a light headshell that would be compatible with the Marantz 6350?
How light is "light"?
tlite
Active Member
Without the cartridge, right? Thanks
6-7 g
Correct. Here's a 7g headshell from Quebec in CDN $ (US $ is 30% less)
Turntable High Quality HeadShell – Silver Stanton type - My Needle Store
Generic Black Aluminum SME type Stanton Headshell, weighs approx 7gms
myneedlestore.com
tlite
Active Member
Okie doke. Effective mass. I've read lots of stuff now.
If I understand correctly this mainly relates to the inertia and side to size movement at a resonant frequncy. The MP-200 hasn't arrived yet, but I tested my Ortofon 2M Red with a HifiNews record and It resonates around 7-8Hz.
Would I be correct that if I add weight somehow to the tonearm counterweight, and move it closer to the pivot point I would both maintain tracking weight and decrease effective mass, thereby increasing the resonant frequency?
I know, a lighter headshell will also be part of the mix at some point, just making sure I'm 'getting it'.
If I understand correctly this mainly relates to the inertia and side to size movement at a resonant frequncy. The MP-200 hasn't arrived yet, but I tested my Ortofon 2M Red with a HifiNews record and It resonates around 7-8Hz.
Would I be correct that if I add weight somehow to the tonearm counterweight, and move it closer to the pivot point I would both maintain tracking weight and decrease effective mass, thereby increasing the resonant frequency?
I know, a lighter headshell will also be part of the mix at some point, just making sure I'm 'getting it'.
tlite
Active Member
OK, so I calculated the Marantz 6350 effective tonearm mass using the following calculator/methodology (which I think uses the "EMC Luckydog" Excel sheet calcs):
mh-audio.nl
My results in image attached to post.
My setup includes an Ortofon 2M Red cartridge (7.2g), Turntable lab/Jelco HS-25.ttl headshell w/wires and hardware (15.3g), Marantz stock counterweight (102g), and an arm tip weight without headshell (12g). Marantz specifies effective length at 219mm.
This yields a whopping tonearm effective mass for the Marantz 6350 of 33.4g!!!! Does this sound right?
I'm now thinking the Nagaoka MP-200 (which hasn't arrived yet) with a 10Hz compliance of between 18-22 (per this thread) is going to be a really bad match...?
HiFi Loudspeaker Design
My results in image attached to post.
My setup includes an Ortofon 2M Red cartridge (7.2g), Turntable lab/Jelco HS-25.ttl headshell w/wires and hardware (15.3g), Marantz stock counterweight (102g), and an arm tip weight without headshell (12g). Marantz specifies effective length at 219mm.
This yields a whopping tonearm effective mass for the Marantz 6350 of 33.4g!!!! Does this sound right?
I'm now thinking the Nagaoka MP-200 (which hasn't arrived yet) with a 10Hz compliance of between 18-22 (per this thread) is going to be a really bad match...?
Attachments
Last edited:
Numbers are great for comparisons, but tell you nothing about how something is going to sound. When the Nag arrives, mount it and align it as you would any other cart, and play some records. Determine for yourself how good it sounds, and whether it's a good match for your deck. I have a feeling you might be surprised.
tlite
Active Member
Thanks for putting it in perspective. That's what I'll do.