• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Moving Coil Carts on MX113/C26?

Whitehall

Whitehall

Super Member
Banned
Thinking of upgrading my cartridge. Anyone with experience with a high output moving coil cart on the MX113 or its pre-amp mate, the C26?

The specs say the Mc can run 2 mV on the phono stage and several MC carts put out 2.5 mV so technically it looks do-able.
 
Register to hide this ad
Ron, isn't there going to be a problem with mismatched impedances? The C26 is 47K ohms, but most moving-coils put out 100K ohms or more. What effect wil lthis have on frequency response?
 
This impedance miss match may result in a slightly rising frequency response but I doubt it is audible. The whole point of high output MCs is they can be used with a MM phono stage.
The Denons will work well here.

Thanks,
Ron-C
 
ron-c said:
This impedance miss match may result in a slightly rising frequency response but I doubt it is audible. The whole point of high output MCs is they can be used with a MM phono stage.
The Denons will work well here.

Thanks,
Ron-C
Click to expand...

Sorry to continue to hammer on this, Ron, but posts in another forum suggest that the mismatch is a serious issue. One person suggested diving into the preamp to change the value of resistors in the phono section. I've never owned an MC cartridge before, but I'm considering buying a Denon DL-160. I guess I'm still a child of the early 1960s, when MM was all we had. I have a C29 preamp.
 
Calypte said:
Sorry to continue to hammer on this, Ron, but posts in another forum suggest that the mismatch is a serious issue. One person suggested diving into the preamp to change the value of resistors in the phono section. I've never owned an MC cartridge before, but I'm considering buying a Denon DL-160. I guess I'm still a child of the early 1960s, when MM was all we had. I have a C29 preamp.
Click to expand...
If you're OCD about this, look for the DB Systems kit they sold years ago for matching capacitance and resistance for both MM and MC cartridges. When it was made, it retailed for about $50, I think, and it was two "Y" connectors that plugged into your phono preamp: The bottom of the "Y" went into the phono preamp, one side of the top of the "Y" took the input from your tone arm, and the other top of the "Y" took a colour-coded plug that would change/adjust either the resistance or capacitance.

I haven't looked for one recently, but I would guess one would pop up sometime on eBay or over at audiogon. But as others have noted, I don't think you'd hear much difference, if any, using a high-output MC cartridge - The manufacturers do assume they are going to be utilized in a regular MM phono pre-amp.

Personally, I second the recommendation for the Dynavector 10x5: It's one heck of a good cartridge for a very down-to-earth price and I think it would be a great match for any McIntosh MM phono pre-amp. YMMV, of course, but I think you'd have to spend way more money to get a better sounding MC cartridge. :cool:
 
Vinyl Rules! said:
If you're OCD about this, look for the DB Systems kit they sold years ago for matching capacitance and resistance for both MM and MC cartridges.
Click to expand...

Interesting you mention this. I have a DB Systems gadget that allows you to change add capacitance for MM cartridges merely by turning a knob. It's easy to make comparisons almost instantaneously.
 
On one hand the DL160 calls for 160ohm loading and MM phono sections should be 47K, like your C29 on the other. The high output DL110 and DL160 are used all the time with MM phono sections which is the whole point of making a high output MC cartridge.
All McIntosh phono sections use an operational amp since the C32. All of these acheive RIAA EQ with inverse feedback. If you want to jump in and modify it that is your call. These phono sections are somewhat unique in design in order to achieve very high overload margins.
You can try it as is with a DL160 or simply use a high performance moving magnet cartridge like the AT 440ML or others.

Thanks,
Ron-C
 
This overload thing....

I'd not underestimate the effect of a high overload factor. Its not been discussed much but I do believe that it needs to be considered in any matching discussions; something that I note is not done with many postings both here and at other sites when discussing cartridge matching.

One of the reasons I like the C2200 is the high levels its inputs will tolerate before clipping. For me, this eliminates one area in matching that I don't have to concern myself with.

I understand that others might want to have control over all the nuances of cartridge matching but I've found that once its been set then you wouldn't normally mess with it again - unless, of course, you're a dedicated tweeker. I've chosen to move that sort of thing outside of the phono stage with most gear that I use.

When I considered cartridges, especially an MC, a Denon DL-103R in my case, I chose to use an outboard stepup transformer, in a separate little box, where I could 'dink' to my heart's content with loading parameters. In this way, I can swap it and the MC out quickly to a MM cartridge without having to do any messing around with the C2200 and I could mess with loading all I wanted. I took a look at the C2200's schematic (available in the Service Manual, which you can order from Mac), I decided that the risks of modding it rather than using outboard loading - not to mention making it less remarketable - wasn't worth the effort. BTW, I use a Stanton 681EEE for a MM.

So, what I'm saying is:

1) Go with a MC and use outboard devices for loading rather than messing with the internals of the newer Mac circuits. They've been optimized for high overload characteristics. If you go with a HO MC, then use a "Y" adapter arrangement to handle loading.

2) The high overloading characteristic is a very underestimated and undervalued consideration - especially for phono circuits. Trading it off for something else without understanding the effect isn't something I want to do.
For this reason, I do not mess with existing gear's phono circuits.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

David
 
So from my research, two candidates emerge to replace my Sumiko Black Pearl (MM). The MM cart is the Ortofon OM-20. That should be a no brainer.

The Sumiko Blue Point Evo III is a almost twice as expensive as the Ortofon but is an MC.

I'm pretty sure, based on this thread, that the Blue Point will work fine in the MX113.

My speakers are Infinity RS 2.5s with the EMIT and EMIM tweeter and midranges so their strengths are from 300 Hz up.

Share your opinions (I know you got'em!)
 
I am currently using a Denon DL-160 in my Thorens TD125 MKII and a Ortofon OM20 super in my Rabco ST8. I have used these with a C27 and am currently using them with my C28 with equally great results. I feel the Phono section in the C28 is slightly better. The Thorens/Denon combo wins hands down with Jazz/acoustic/classical, the Rabco/Ortofon with rock IMHO.
Good luck!
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the replies. I have no intention of modifying the interior of my C29, though I'd be interested if someone could optimize Phono 2 for a high-output MC (but I'm not going to do the work). Right now I'm running a Stanton 881 MkIIs in a Linn Basik Plus arm on an LP12. The sound is (IMHO) really great. The issue is that genuine stereohedron styli for this cartridge are getting hard to find, though www.kabusa.com has some. So I've started to think about other carts, and the high-output MCs sound interesting. I'm told (by some) that the Basik Plus arm doesn't handle MCs very well, but opinion seems to be divided on the suitability of something like the DL-160 in this arm.
 
ehoove said:
[snip] I feel the Phono section in the C28 is slightly better.
Good luck!
Click to expand...
You are not the first person to praise the phono section of the C28 here (and in other groups).

Two questions for the esteemed members of this group:

(1) Any concensus on how far up one has to go in the McIntosh pre-amp line to "better" the sound of the phono pre-amp in the C28? and

(2) Any thoughts from anyone on the phono pre-amp in the C504 pre-amp? This particular design was only used in the C504 and the MX117.

I have several friends who swear by the C504's phono section, say it's the best McIntosh phono pre-amp ever built, and is better than any Audio Research phono pre-amp they've ever heard. It's specs are slightly different from any other McIntosh phono pre-amp ever built.

Any thoughts on (1) above and is (2) above an audio "urban legend" or is there any truth to it in anyone's opinion?

Curious minds are curious. :cool:
 
Calypte said:
Thank you for the replies. I have no intention of modifying the interior of my C29, though I'd be interested if someone could optimize Phono 2 for a high-output MC (but I'm not going to do the work). Right now I'm running a Stanton 881 MkIIs in a Linn Basik Plus arm on an LP12. The sound is (IMHO) really great. The issue is that genuine stereohedron styli for this cartridge are getting hard to find, though www.kabusa.com has some. So I've started to think about other carts, and the high-output MCs sound interesting. I'm told (by some) that the Basik Plus arm doesn't handle MCs very well, but opinion seems to be divided on the suitability of something like the DL-160 in this arm.
Click to expand...
1. I think you are a wise man to not try to mod the phono section of the C29.

2. I've never tried the Basik Plus/DL-160 combo, but Linn should be able to provide you the effective mass of this tonearm and Denon should be able to provide you a recommended range for optimal tonearm mass for this cartridge.

3. If you go the MC route, I personally prefer step-up transformers that offer adjustable resistance. They are passive devices and in my experience they colour the sound less than active step-up devices. And it's interesting that McIntosh chose to use an Ortofon-sourced step-up transformer for the MC section in one of their pre-amps.

Those who proselytize for active step-up MC devices will tell you that transformers will restrict the dynamic range of MC cartridges whist active step-up devices do not. I say horse poo to this, but everyone has an opinion here. :blah:

4. Doug Sax thinks very highly of the Stanton 881 MKIIS and made a comment in an interview in The Absolute Sound a while back that he thought it was the best sounding cartridge he'd ever listened to. As always, YMMV. :cool:
 
Vinyl Rules! said:
4. Doug Sax thinks very highly of the Stanton 881 MKIIS and made a comment in an interview in The Absolute Sound a while back that he thought it was the best sounding cartridge he'd ever listened to. As always, YMMV. :cool:
Click to expand...
I bought the cart based upon the recommendation in this article, which I think was about 11 or 12 years ago. A lot has changed since then, including the fact that Stanton no longer makes this cart and genuine styli are getting difficult to find. I can only rely on what Kevin at www.kabusa.com has told me, but according to him the 881 styli available at a few DJ sources are elliptical, not stereohedron, and the QA became much less reliable after the mid-1990s, with a lot of bent cantilevers and tilted styli. The sound of the original cartridge is great, though.
 
You might want to use this excellent tool in trying to match your cartridge choices to your Linn Basik tonearm. You have a great setup, just need to find the right cartridge for your tonearm. You will need to know the mass of your tonearm.
Have fun! I sure did researching out the denon DL-160 for the realitively high mass TP-16 arm on my Thorens

http://www.cartridgedb.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom