Ortofon MC A90 cartridge

Is it superior to the Ortofon M20FL Super? (KIdding, guys.) I own an MC7500 that I am very fond of as well and which has qualities similar to those you guys are describing. I never owned an Ortofon cartridge until I recently acquired these two, and I am developing great respect for the company and its products. So maybe I need to get an A90 too. But for $179, you cannot beat the M20FL Super, maybe not for anything less than $2000.

Axel, A90 vs M20FL Super? Any comments?

Axel, I do agree with you, but I did not wish to start an argument. So I kept the number well below the cost of top-flight LOMC cartridges so as not to irritate anyone. Mike Lavigne, you really should try an M20FL Super, especially on your Garrard. I would love to hear your opinion, as I know you have sampled most of the best and most expensive cartridges in the context of your superb system.

Mike, I did not wish to play that game of value for money. I actually think that the M20FL Super is delightful in its own rite/right/wright (never knew which form was correct for this phrase). Just consider it as another cartridge, if you get a chance to listen to one. In fact, since I have two, one of which is still in its box, I would be willing to lend you one of mine. My first one sounded excellent right out of the box but got much better after 2-4 hours and a couple of tours of the Cardas test LP.

I know nothing about the Jubilee; that's another kettle of fish. I suspect that the MC7500 is superior to the Jubilee, but I have no data to support that idea.

Do you guys think that the 47-ohm load would also be optimal for the MC7500, given the familial relationship among the MC7500, Windfield, and MCA90 cartridges? I like the MC7500 at 100 ohms very much. If I would critique it I would say that it is slightly "dry" sounding, gives lots of inner detail but maybe not so much in the way of "goosebumps". On the other hand, I came to it from years of listening to my Koetsu Urushi, so you could say I had been conditioned to a different sound that is anything but "dry". In comparison, the Colibri gives the best bit of both worlds, but it is finicky. I don't know how I ever lived without 3 turntables. (Meant as self-deprecation)

Dear Mike, Do you really think that the differences you hear are mostly due to the tonearm/turntable interaction (consistent with your statement that mounting the Reed on your Garrard might give you the best of both worlds). I am kind of biased toward the view that the tonearm/cartridge interaction is dominant, so it may be that the Reed is just a better ride for the A90. Probably the lower noise floor you perceive with the Mk3 vs the Garrard IS due to the inherently more quiet operation of the Mk3, however.

At a lower level, I am trying to figure out words to describe the differences between my own SP10 MK2A in a natural slate plinth of my design and my Lenco remounted on a PTP in its own natural slate plinth. The Lenco is really dead quiet, so I cannot say I hear much difference in terms of noise. I need to swap the tonearms back and forth to get a better bead on what is happening. In my case, I do not have the same cartridge mounted on both tables, either. What is remarkable is how much the two tables sound alike (in a very good way), once mounted in slate. I have heard people say that the Mk2 is "sterile" sounding, especially lovers of idler-drive turntables, like Jean Nantais. I know what Jean meant by that remark, but in slate that quality disappears and the sound opens up and gets bigger and more lush. I can't wait to hear the Mk3.