Opinions: Music Hall mmf-5.1 Special Edition
- Thread starter MichaelJ
- Start date
Well, I am gonna do what I always to and recommend a Rega. If you ask me, there is just no beating them for bang for the buck. Don't let their light weight and small size fool you. There is a lot of engineering in the design. It is not cost cutting that makes them look like that. It is good design.
They are the easiest table to resell that there is.
One thing I keep seeing online is comments along the lines of " I have had my Rega P2 or P3 or Planar 3 for 20 years now.....". Rega seems to be the music lovers if not the audiophiles, choice.
Just stated IMHO. YMMV. Etc.
They are the easiest table to resell that there is.
One thing I keep seeing online is comments along the lines of " I have had my Rega P2 or P3 or Planar 3 for 20 years now.....". Rega seems to be the music lovers if not the audiophiles, choice.
Just stated IMHO. YMMV. Etc.
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
Why wouldn't you be able to put a MC cartridge on that turntable?
cmb3366
Well-Known Member
+1
Put a MC cart on that table and dont look back. I've got on on my 2.9, and it sounds fantastic.
I always thought that MC turtables were designed for the lower mv of the cartridges. If that is not true, :thmbsp:
I have heard it said that MC catridges sound better than MM cartridges but didn't want to take the chance of it not being capitable.
Thanks!
Trower
Two-Headed Boy
I didn't mean that they were bad at all, just that the table and motor are able to handle a better arm without anyproblems. Was mostly just saying the decks are really great, and there arms are, just good. Hope I'm putting this across right.
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
I understand what you mean, and I do agree. Occasionally people bash those tonearms, and I don't think they deserve a bad rap.
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
You tonearm is more important when it comes to MC cartridges - you'll generally want something medium mass and heavier to avoid compliance issues as MC cartridges are low-compliance. Low-compliance cartridge, high-mass tonearm. It's like a math formula!
As to whether they sound better than MM, that depends on one's tastes. My opinion is that MC cartridges do more things better than MM cartridges, and that's why they're often considered superior. However, there are still some things MM cartridges arguably do a bit better than MC. You have to also consider that MM cartridges only go up to around the $1000 mark, but MC cartridges can cost $15,000+, which, we'd hope, means a much higher performer.
In any case, your MH turntable should have a medium mass tonearm, which will absolutely work with many MC cartridges, especially if you add a headshell weight, but you don't have to. Consider, for example, the HOMC cartridge I use on my Pro-Ject, the Dynavector 10X5. It's an excellent match, and the next cartridge I get will also be a MC.
Thanks for the info Mr. Lin. It's nice to know I have more options to upgrade.
Just a quick thread hi-jack question, Why would a headshell wieght possibly be needed? Wouldn't the tone arm counter wieght just negate any extra wieght at the headshell when the tone arm is balanced? Please excuse my ignorance, for as long as I have been listening to LPs, it seems I still have alot to learn!
Just a quick thread hi-jack question, Why would a headshell wieght possibly be needed? Wouldn't the tone arm counter wieght just negate any extra wieght at the headshell when the tone arm is balanced? Please excuse my ignorance, for as long as I have been listening to LPs, it seems I still have alot to learn!
Mr. Lin
Lunatic Member
You won't necessarily need it, but if it's a low compliance cartridge and your arm is, say, 11 grams (like mine), it might help to add a little more mass to the tonearm by using a headshell weight. But again, medium mass and up, you should be fine with or without a headshell weight.
