Reasonable moving coil cartridge


I am looking to purchase a Music Hall 1.5 TT. The selling point being a removable headshell. 

That being said, i am looking for a reasonably priced moving coil cartridge to use on the MH. My preamp is the Bryston 1B- MC. I am not looking to refinance my house. Something in the neighborhood of $200-300 USD. I dont need to worry about a moving coil amplifier as the MC comes with one built in.

thanks
6fcb6349 bb66 4d29 a2dc 801d91e345c5jcipale
@cleeds

No difference in alignment of the Elliptical or LineContact or whatever profile. I do the same steps when i need to mount a cartridge and align it (no matter what type). Conical is less sensitive to alignment and this is the reason it was used by professionals (radiostations, discotheque etc) where people have no time to align anything and where spare styli must be very cheap to replace when it’s broken.

Cartridge designed for use on a headshell which is flat, in this position the stylus tip already aligned correctly, tonearm designed for use in parallel to the record surface when the needle is on the record, headshell is a part of the tonearm. If headshell, tonearm are parallel to the record then cartridge is also parallel to the record and then the stylus is just fine in this position. This is a starting point. But fine-tuning is always possible!

Everyone can check it without any special devices.

If someone prefer to spend time aligning a cartridge with some computer devises, microscopes, analyzers, apps ... instead of enjoying the records after visual alignment with some nice protractor, then i think this category of people belong to a very small group of audiophiles.

I trust my ears and this is my advice for anyone, especially for those people who ask about cartridges here, if they can’t decide about cartridges and someone willing to drop all that BS on them about some special devices, some difficulties in alignment of everything on turntable, i want to say this is all false in my opinion. It is easy to learn and very easy to use a turntable, cartridge etc. Loads of tutorials are on youtube for free (Mr.Fremer even released a DVD about it, but it’s not free).

It is very important to buy a cartridge with the best profile, not with the worst profile! This is a progress in analog reproduction and millions of people using those cartridges and styli, because they are better in terms of sound (also better in terms of recordwear). If someone prefer to use the worst stylus on the planet (like conical) just because this type of stylus does not require alignment at all (it’s conical) then i don’t think they have much interest in analog or high fidelity.

Everyone can use and align the most complicated stylus following step by step tutorial and verify by ears. It makes sense to use them on better tonearms.

Not everyone can detect a tiny difference in VTA and VTF, also not everyone can detect any difference between alignment methods. That’s for sure.

But everyone can hear the difference between Conical tip and MicroRidge tip on the same cartridge. Even if the Micro Ridge is not 100% perfectly aligned (in theory) it will be a better profile in detail retrieval, soundstage, resolution, depth etc. I’ve heard it million times in the headphones using two identical average turntable connected to the average phono preamp. In the main system the difference is huge even for my guests (not audiophiles).

Fairy tales about difficulties in alignment of the cartridges with advanced profiles must be ignored. Having over 50 cartridges my experience is different. Advanced stylus profile is always better than conical and elliptical if you can compare them on the same MM cartridge (where you can swap then in a 10 seconds) to make sure. 
I do had an opportunity to compare on the same design several stylus profiles on LOMC. So I can agree sometimes fairy tales about superiority of advanced profiles can be ignored also.
Profile is foreseen by design and engineer. SPU Wood A for example has conical stylus.
Would the AT OC9/II be considered a step up in sound (even tho it is cheaper) from my Dynavector 10X5 homc?
I do had an opportunity to compare on the same design several stylus profiles on LOMC.


How can you do that with LOMC? Please explain.
You cartridge must be re-tipped if you want to add another profile, retip is degradation in sound, this is why your experience is not positive. 

So I can agree sometimes fairy tales about superiority of advanced profiles can be ignored also.

Give us an example when Conical profile is better than anything else, or please recall an elliptical that better than MicroRidge or similar profile. 

Profile is foreseen by design and engineer. SPU Wood A for example has conical stylus.

SPU is oldschool cartridge designed in the 40's, maybe you like cactus stylus or those steel needles for gramophones too ?

I owned SPU Classic with conical tip and this is an awful cartridge just liek Denon 103, next one was SPU Spirit LTD with Elliptical and it was much better cartridge, last one was SPU Royal G mkII with Replican 100 and this is the best SPU i have ever heard in my system. 

If you want to re-tip your MC cartridge every 600 hrs you can use Elliptical, life span of the conical tip is shorter. But if you want to use your SPU for 2000 hrs then Replicant 100 is the best (the finest quality). 

What is your argument ? 

I want to tell you that nobody uses a conical tip anymore on any high-end cartridges, it is inferior profile by default, it's obvious for any cartridge designer today and it was obvious even in the 70's/80's. Since JVC invented Shibata. 

Even Ortofon claimed that conical is the worst stylus profile and you can read it in their books, catalogs etc. Check this for example. 

If you don't know the basics about diamond profiles please find a valid source and read about it. 
@bajaed 

In my opinion and personal experience....  

I haven't heard a Dyna 10X5.  I know some audiophiles whose opinion I trust that say the OC9/II is as good as it gets under $1,000, but there have been a lot of advances in cartridges in the last few years and would question that opinion today.  I also know some audiophiles whose opinion I trust that say the Dyna carts flesh out musical instruments better than the better AT's.  But there are new AT's that they haven't heard.  

Comparing the 10X5 HOMC to the OC9/II is also comparing a HOMC to a LOMC.  IMO, the LOMC would have an advantage, everything else being equal.  But the LOMC requires a phono stage with higher gain.  

My ears say that the only cartridges I'm happy with besides the AT's (and not all those) are the Lyra carts (and not all of those).    

I suggest that when it's time to replace your 10X5, you consider An OC9.  Maybe even one of the new ones.  There's even a new one with a Shibata stylus profile.