Detachable Head shell or Not?

@lewm 

@pindac 

'what tonearm offers both a continuous wire connection AND an interchangeable headshell? '

Kuzma 4Point arms all have detachable headshell and continuous wiring run from cartridge to phono - no joins.

Furthermore you can remove the arm tube completely with continuous wiring still attached to make attaching the wires to the cartridge pins easier after you have install the headshell alternate headshell.

Brilliant system.

The following is a copy and paste of a section of an earlier post I had made.

There is an update on this investigation further on in this post.  post that follows 

________________________________________________________________

' The motivation to create this demonstration of New Wire Designs on the Tonearms   is solely created from my side, the Tonearm Designers are aware of the compromises that my suggestion to trial the wires can create, when an external mounted wire is used, they remain open minded about the demonstrations and are quite willing to experience my proposals and have already shared between each other a simple solution for mounting routing the Wires and a temporary shielding method, that if all the methods being selected work together, will alleviate the concerns for an unsuccessful demonstration completely. 

From a selfish perspective I am hoping for a PC Triple C or D.U.C.C Tonearm Internal Wiring, as the over the past year the whole of the system has progressively had New Wire Design Cables added, and is now set up with the same wire types being used at all other interfaces between devices, and PC's are the ongoing Cables being exchanged to the New Wire Types.

_______________________________________________________________

Today I have taken part in a phone conversation with the engineer who is producing the Tonearm that I am using.

Our models in use at present are not identical, as I have not had the modified SME Bayonet Headshell, that has a much improved coupling to the wand produced for mine.

I have heard my model in comparison to the SME Bayonet Headshell modified model, and have also had my preferred Cart' mounted onto the modified model.

There is a noticeable improvement with the modified Headshell in use, my own Cart' was being perceived for being able to offer an improvement in the preciseness of the details produced, and this is a cart' that is already very good at digging detail out. A longer listening period may have shown more of the improved capabilities of the modification.

This is a modification that I intend on having adding to my own arm. 

I have balked at booking the Arm in fro the mod' as there has been inroads made to the use of PC Triple C wire for internal wiring for the Tonearm.

I have had a very recent experience of this wire in use on the modified tonearm, which had got my attention further, even though I was assured there were a few foibles that were remaining to be overcome, as the sheath was not supple enough.

Today I was informed of a new sheath being used and the Tonearm is wired internally with PC Triple C Wire.

I was thanked for encouraging this line of investigation and was requested to visit to receive a demonstration.

The Engineer who has worked with this tonearm design for quite a few years has made it known they are extremely impressed and I should hear it in use myself.

He said he has no doubts in his mind why SAEC have chosen this wire type for their Tonearm.

I has taken a little bit of obsessional encouragement to get to this stage and the reports offered are very exciting.

I have another friend who is a producer of Tonearms and has been encouraged by myself to take part in these investigations, I am sure now the reports are as received they will adopt the methods used for the one that is now in use and looking to be quite a special item.    

Just an update here.  After taking delivery of a Schroeder tonearm, I soon realized that this tonearm has a similar cartridge interchangeability as the Tru-Glider.  In the case of the Schroeder, the cartridge attaches to a plate which is then attached to the arm via one screw.  The screw is used to align the cartridge around the Z axis at the two null points on the protractor.  The Tru-Glider uses a detachable head shell and likely goes through a similar adjustment to the null points.  Both arms retain wire integrity from cartridge clips to RCA's.

As for my TT situation, both arms would sit on towers.  See my system setup for a view of this.  Swapping cartridges for both arms is quick and easy....no fussing with the high-risk process of mounting a cartridge with its screws.  Adjusting either arm's tower for the correct distance for the two null points takes only a minute or two as well.  This reminds me of the adjustable distance settings I have seen on the Feickert TT.

I have no experience with the Tru-Glider, but once the arm height is adjusted for VTA, it takes maybe 5 minutes to adjust the counterweight for back-n-forth VTF and Azimuth.  And then the setup is ready to play.  Total swap time here is about 15 minutes with the only vulnerability being the breakage of the cartridge clips if one gets rushed or careless.

@edgewear the Zen Diamond that convinced me there’s no decisive sonic advantage to fixed wiring.

Exactly.
The world of audio deviates more and more in situations similar to formula 1 or to formula indy cars where every technical micro detail is pursued for improvements that in car racing a tenth of a second every lap can make the difference (and can be verified ) but in the audio field we must consider that the ear has difficulty in perceiving, even more with age since the physiological decline increases and worse still there is no racing car to beat.
With these terrible assumptions, we cannot expect the new generations to love audio as we do, on the contrary, there is a risk of move away these young people from us who belong to the old or very old generation.

What makes me smile is the idea of a $20K cartridge on a $100,000+ turntable in order to play even a mint vintage LP that one may have paid $5 or $10 for. Of course the buyers of those cartridges probably would not be caught dead with a used LP. They probably buy all their LPs newly minted from one of the many purveyors of such vinyl. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, but it is an amusing social phenomenon, to me.

The first thing I'd say is, don't knock it until you've heard it.  My first experience hearing a system that probably cost more than you mentioned was mind blowing.  

Secondly, if someone is going to make that kind of investment, they are likely well versed in what "good" vinyl is.  The person that owned this system was, for sure.  They may also buy collections of used vinyl, but be very picky about what they purchase, not to mention being cognizant of the fact that old pressings are often better than new pressings.  

If I had the means and time to do so, I would not hesitate to make an investment of that size in an analog system and the vinyl to go with it.

@lewm I agree with you 100%, but buying vintage LP’s of audiophile quality in NM or EX condition has recently become a painfully expensive endeavour. Those golden $5-10 days are gone forever. Think Decca SXL, emi ASD, Columbia SAX, rca LSC, mercury SR and the like. Same story with original jazz pressings from blue note, prestige, contemporary and many others. Or original vertigo swirls, pink islands, etcetera.

The $100k turntable & $10k+ cartridge crowd will probably never touch those ‘used’ records, perhaps never knowing these sound much superior to those pristine audiophile reissues they buy. Conversely, I know many fanatical collectors of these vintage pressings who don’t care about audiophile sound and would raise their eyebrows at the idea of spending even 1000 bucks on a ‘needle’.

Apparently the ‘trophies for the rich’ crowd finally ‘discovered’ those vintage pressings, probably because their prices had slowly and steadily reached their snob appeal level. From that moment on prices of original pressings have rapidly gone completely off the charts and still rising, even without the ‘hot stamper’ marketing nonsense. So for newbies the used record market is not nearly as attractive as it was 10 or more years ago.

I could say that I purchased about 2/3 or more of my LP collection new, but covering a span of time from the 1970s to the present. Furthermore I obtained about 1/3 of my collection from the estate of my dear friend whom I know purchased all of his LPs brand new. Because most of the time I was with him as we strolled the bins of a Tower records or other local record store. I treasure all of these LPs. But one can safely purchase preowned LPs, if one is careful about where they come from. For example, in Tokyo I buy used LPs, because the Japanese take inordinate care of their LPs. If the rating of the used LP is an A in Tokyo I don’t even need to look at it to know that it will play perfectly. But in this modern era, based on my experiences, it is a real crapshoot whether a newly re-issued LP will actually be of high-quality or even match that of the original pressing. Some of them are just plain awful. So if I were giving advice to a newbie, I would advise that person to purchase preowned LPs but with very careful inspection of each one.

@lewm , I don't buy used records but my record player only adds up to $18K. Guess I'm going to have to cough up another $100K :(

What makes me smile is the idea of a $20K cartridge on a $100,000+ turntable in order to play even a mint vintage LP that one may have paid $5 or $10 for. Of course the buyers of those cartridges probably would not be caught dead with a used LP. They probably buy all their LPs newly minted from one of the many purveyors of such vinyl. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, but it is an amusing social phenomenon, to me.

Ah, like exclusive one-off designer handbags? 🥴

@edgewear 

Can’t wait for the first 20k+ cartridge and the accompanying marketing nonsense. Or is it already among us?

You have missed the boat - there have been artisanal cartridges well north of US$20k available for a number of years in Europe - made to order. You won't find them in the usual places.

@best-groove Agreed. Reasonably priced top cartridges in the current marketplace are in the 5-6k range. Above that price level we are entering ‘trophy for the rich’ territory, which is all about exclusivity, ‘pride’ of ownership and snobbery.
Can’t wait for the first 20k+ cartridge and the accompanying marketing nonsense. Or is it already among us?

@edgewear

the Zen Diamond is one of those ‘oldies’ that had me convinced that no ‘sea change’ in sonic improvement has occurred in recent years that would justify the ridiculous pricing of current top MC’s.

It is not as bad as you think - a $1k cartridge in the mid 80’s would be $5-6k in todays money - 37 years later. Average wages have gone up 5-700% in that time period. Would you spend your prime years building the best cartridge in the world for $2.00 an hour ?

Having said that $11-15k plus is gouging in my view. Unfortunately there are buyers prepared to pay stupid money to have something most people can't afford.

The value add proposition is n longer sound quality - its ego.

Have you noticed each time an outrageous price barrier is passed, for example the first $100k turntable, the floodgates open.

@best-groove yup, the Zen Diamond is one of those ‘oldies’ that had me convinced that no ‘sea change’ in sonic improvement has occurred in recent years that would justify the ridiculous pricing of current top MC’s.

And with your Pioneer Exclusive P3 even one tonearm is sufficient, by alternating between the straight and S-type armpipes. The very similar tonearm of the PL-70L II turntable was in fact also used to conduct the little comparative investigation with the Zen Diamond that convinced me there’s no decisive sonic advantage to fixed wiring.

Anyone interested in the ‘fixed or not fixed headshell’ discussion should read Ken Kessler’s recent back page column in HiFiNews about this issue. He mentions the multitude of interruptions inside any audio component as argument against making too big a thing of this issue. But he’s an old guy too, so probably unable to hear the sonic differences our ‘transfixed to fixed’ forum members apparently do.

@edgewear     I used a Sato Musen Zen Diamond.....


big cartridge, I own it too and I'm thrilled. 

it is sufficient to have two arms, one with a detachable shell and one with a fixed shell so as to enter into discussions as an audiophile or an cartridges reviewer as desired.  

I have a Sumiko MMT arm with 4 detachable headshells: two for Koetsus, one for a Benz, and one for a Grado for 78s.

It is difficult to see where the benefits are for the mechanical interfaces on the Tonearm using the methods suggested by the Tonearm Dealer you are in communication with.

For my TT setup, the arm sits on a tower (cylinder) adjacent to the platter.  There is no plinth.  The top of the platter is 57mm above the top of the tower.  A disc, essentially the armboard, attaches to the top of the metal tower.  The height of the armboard is machined to achieve the nominal distance from top of the armboard to platter as required for the selected tonearm.  The dealer told me that this distance is nominally 30mm for the selected tonearm.

I fully agree that a change of, or addition of materials, in an assembly, at an interface where parts are fastened to each other within the assembly of the devices on the TT, will introduce a change to the Sonic Signature offered. 

Exactly as explained to me by the dealer. 

Whenever there is a junction between two different materials it creates a reflection boundary which in this case would be trial and error to learn of the impact of the reflected energy at the interface.

He described the sonic differences of various boards he has machined for customers and his own setup. I have no desire to painstakingly try many armboards to find the ideal material for me.  I can leverage off his knowledge and experience to provide advice to me, the customer, as to what material will work with my system and sonic priorities.

He said I could try the existing metal disc I have, with or without a thin wood shim, and see how that works out.  Based on all he shared with me, I had no desire to do this.  And he said that metal on metal will result in an exaggerated top end with added "detail" which does not appeal to me.

Ultimately he suggested one of the exotic hardwoods for my setup.  He said that after I give this a serious listen, and if something is "not quite right", we can discuss further; he would send me a different board to try.  Customer service does not get any better!  The end result with what he sends to me in a week will be far beyond what I have ever had on a TT.

Dear @jafox  : Agree with you, does not exist the " best " on ay audio item. All about is which " one " fulfill our MUSIC/sound priorities.

Btw, the arm board is really important to damp not only vibrations/resonances coming from the TT/plinth,/tonearm but the ones coming in the " air ". If the arm board does not damps very well then the feedback that always is generated will affects the quality sound level we are listen it.

R.

It is difficult to see where the benefits are for the mechanical interfaces on the Tonearm using the methods suggested by the Tonearm Dealer you are in communication with.

I fully agree that a change of, or addition of materials, in an assembly, at an interface where parts are fastened to each other within the assembly of the devices on the TT, will introduce a change to the Sonic Signature offered.             The discovery to be made is if the change is a desirable outcome for the end user, changing Plinth Mounting Methods, Headshells and Platter Mats can also offer perceptions of changes being created in the Sonic Signature offered by the assembly.

Whenever there is a junction between two different materials it creates a reflection boundary which in this case would be trial and error to learn of the impact of the reflected energy at the interface.

It is a improved engineering / design consideration, to sink the energy through the arm and into the bearings and propagate to the plinth with the most efficient management of the energy transfer through to the plinth, where the energy will dissipate.

 

Raul - I tend to not be fond of the word, best.  The use of superlatives often gets us in trouble.  Even when we refer to one product over another as better, this too is often not easily quantifiable.  When I compare products, I think of preference, and at that moment.

I talked again with the tonearm dealer today.  Two weeks ago he gave me the rundown on the sonic and setup differences of the tonearm he had for sale vs. two others that I asked him about.  He had been a dealer for one of those.  It all came down to preferences, the word best never came up.

The dealer told me the tonearm mount ring on my TT's tonearm tower is chrome-plated aluminum.  As the bottom of the tonearm is metal, he suggested an alternate to machining the existing mounting ring.  He felt that metal on metal was not a good coupling.  Initially he considered inserting a 3mm wood shim here as provided by the tonearm designer. But today he suggested to machine a new mount altogether.  He talked of different wood materials and other boards made of multiple materials sandwiched through a high temperature process.  I shared the evolution of my system, my sonic preferences years ago and now.  This lead him to suggest a couple of boards to match with my preferences.  Again, we never talked about best.

With all the discussion here on tonearms, removable head shells, cable from cartridge to phone stage, etc., the discussion today with the dealer made me aware of the relevance of mounting board materials. 

After I live with he arm and cartridge change for a week or so, I will tweak the arm's parameters per the dealer's suggestions, listen more and repeat another time or two and then leave it alone.  Once I become familiar with the changes, I will cycle a few IC's and PC's in a couple places.  And who knows, I might prefer another of my cables in a link that was not preferred there before.  😊 

The idea of the continuous wire from Cart' Pins the Phono RCA will be very appealing to those who want minimised interruption in the Signal Path.

The method is best used only if the mechanical properties of the Tonearm are not impacted on by the methods to use the wire,

The goal is to have as close to a Zero influence as possible on the mechanical interfaces within the arm, and there are not many who deal with this area, that are with the understanding and skills to create the methods where a influence of the design change for the wiring is nearing Zero influence.    

I used to not like them, but now that I own a Technics MK7 I have come to appreciate the ease at which I can not only mount a cartridge, but also swap another in on a spare headshell. I doubt there is much noticeable difference in sound quality. Another cool thing is you can use headshells other than the Technics.

With detachable shells, I think it is never as good, but convenience may trump the degradation in sound. Similarly I cant think of a single situation is which directly going from the cartridge to the preamp with wire wont be superior. 

@pindac - I read again your comments on tube rolling while also evaluating cable differences.  During the decade that I compared many cables, I did much more experimenting with tube rolling.  It was 15-20 years ago that some A'gon members, most notably Albert Porter and Bart Posner, shared with me much of their in-depth knowledge on the many tubes they had tried.  I bought the same line and phono stages as Albert owned, and I had the same observations.

The first thing I do when I get a tube product is to remove the stock tubes.  They are there because of availability in mass quantity.  But the true potential of these units is only experienced through patience.  One learns/discovers a few brands of each tube type that bring on a new level of articulation, frequency extreme coverage, openness.  There are some with wild tonal coherence issues, flat presentation, etc.  But on occasion, a discovery can lead to an improvement that many would classify as a "component upgrade".  This experience can occur 2, 3 or more times with one component.  And if the component has a tube power supply, especially a tube rectifier, a change here can be as dramatic as a signal tube.

Some tube component designers suggest that their designs do not require tube rolling, or they go as far to say it is not recommended.  But Michael Elliot, the Counterpoint designer. encouraged his customers to experiment with signal and power supply tubes.  He was so right about the benefits here.  It's this devotion to experimentation with tubes and cables, that can take a fairly good sounding system to be near, or at, or even beyond the performance of systems costing significantly more.

@pindac - If interested, send me a private note here and I can share some of my favorite tubes in the 6922/6DJ8, 12AX7/5751, 12AU7/12BH7, EL34, classes.  I have no experience with 6SN7 based preamps but maybe one day I can try such.

John

Dear @jafox  : I never tested Audioquest cables and my post came from other audiophile opinion.

As almost always we can say that the best IC cable is the one that works the best in that system link and that helps to achieve our targets in MUSIC reproduction quality levels. So, each one of us have an specific cadidate for " the best ".

Btw, I owned the AQ 7000Fe5 and agree with you of the AQ high quality level performance. The Fe5 was the top of the AQ line and the last cartridge they puts in the market. Was manufactured by Scan-Tech the same builder of Lyra cartridges.

It's good that you already found out that " best " IC cable in that specific system link and I hope that it works the same for you with your new tonearm.

R.

@frogman the description offered from a few added comments from myself, I think we are very close in our understanding of what a correct cable choice for our own systems can create.

 @dover 'I look at cables a little differently to most. I assume all cables degrade the sound, ( I formed this viewpoint when swapping out OFC cables to be replaced with OCC ) and therefore when I assess cables I am looking for the cable that does the least damage ( create the perception of being able to produce the the most honest rendition from my assessment ) - least damage in terms of transparency (to sense that there is an added level in the presentation, of being able to improve how the defining of the produced micro details, note envelope, attack, dynamics and imaging are being perceived, when these sonic traits are being realized the Soundstage takes on a whole new meaning ) the  noise floor ( to realize the former valued sonic traits the noise floor will be noticeably quieter and much less of a detractor, as once the noise is known, the coloration it will produce, can draw the attention and can become quite undesirable ), coherency. (when the Frequency Range sound correctly balanced between each other ands there is no on area taking a dominance, when this is being sensed as being a Honest Rendition, the performance during the replay can for some, including myself, become very satisfying )

I have always been happy with my system for over 15 Years, when it was still an analogue only system, and as it progressed to take on new source options in the digital format.

The devices chosen to assemble the system are pretty much the same, the choices made for the interfaces has been an evolving experience and has undergone changes as described.

The PC Triple C and D.U.C.C Wire in Cables has transformed the system to rendition my earlier sonic trait descriptions to a level I did not see developing.

I was quite alone in the quest for these cables, and now I have loaned a few types out the number of individuals in the UK are beginning to grow in numbers for the acquiring of them, some of these purchases are being made as a direct result of the demonstration offered, and others are made as a result of word of mouth recommendations and not from my mouth.   

    '

Raul, 

Concerning Reed tonearms, a few years ago an audio dealer had a TT for sale that I wanted but it was sold just before I contacted that dealer.  I then bought the Triangle Art TT.  A year later, that same dealer had some Reed arms for sale.  I had read positive press on these arms.  Sadly once again, I hesitated and was too late to purchase one of those.

Earlier this month, this same dealer had one remaining arm in stock for sale that he will no longer carry.  This arm intrigued me enough for me to talk with him.  And ultimately I purchased this arm.  He offered to machine the mount ring for the arm tower and provide a spacer between the mount and arm to better handle any resonances.  These were offered to me at no charge; now that's great customer service!  Once I get this arm set up and live with it for some time, I will look to contact him again for advice on another arm ... perhaps a model that he now currently sells or that he has experience with, or some others on my mind.

As for Audioquest, after I read the rave reviews of their top IC at the time, I got one and tried it in my system.  It was one of the most dimensionally flat cables I had experienced.  No matter how tonally coherent, detailed, incredible degree of clarity,  etc., that a cable might have, if it truncates piano notes instantly, the cable is immediately dismissed.  Needless to say, I don't have a lot of excitement to try another Audioquest cable unless someone here can suggest a model.  However, I have an old Audioquest 7000 cartridge, re-tipped by the Andy at the Needle Clinic.  This cartridge is outstanding and just might be one of two that I end up running in a 2-tonearm system.

John

@jafox 

You raise some great points. I look at cables a little differently to most. I assume all cables degrade the sound, and therefore when I assess cables I am looking for the cable that does the least damage - least damage in terms of transparency, noise floor, coherency. I see too many people using cables as a bandaid to a system issue - check the forums "looking for a cable with good bass..." or other criteria.

With regard to phono cables it gets a little bit interesting because there is no one size fits all. Electrically the tonearm cable is part of a tuned system that includes the cartridge and the receiving device - be it phono stage, moving coil set up ( transformer or other active mc step up ). Therefore unless everyone has the same cartridge/phono, experiences and opinions will vary, as they do.

I note that neither Audioquet or Stealth provide any electrical specifications for their phono cables - no capacitance figures, no data on phase shifts at varying frequencies etc etc.

So for most folk phono cables are a lottery - suck it and see. And in many situations I have seen folk come to grief because they have a cable bandaid, they upgrade their system and the cable bandaid doesn't work with the new gear.

For my own system I use 2 phono cables depending on cartridge.

For MM's I use a custom Audioplan phono cable - silver, twisted pair, shielded  ultra low capacitance. This was a manufacturers sample never released to public - too expensive.

For MC's ( which is what I primarily listen to ) I use either MIT Oracle phono or some custom cables I have built myself using MIT Varilay wire as a builtin block from the 80's. They are very capacitive which is why they don't work with MM's.

I have a lot in the bin - Ikeda, Audio Tekne, Audioquest and many others in the parts bin. Most of these do too much damage. I have not heard the Hyperphono, the Audioquest Leopard is average, not particularly transparent, low level detail goes awol in my experience.

Finally we have to remember that listening preferences vary considerably from person to person, some folk want a nice smooth sound, some want zero noise, some want "fast zippy sound" - when I had an audio shop I heard it all.

My advice for any cable purchaser is audition in your own system, listen for musical coherence, low noise floor and transparency - do not focus on a specific attribute - and do not believe any reviews, use them as guides only.

Dear @jafox  : What a post !, a learning one. Thank's for sharing your valuable experiences down there.

Btw, a wealthy audiophile that as you owns tube electronics and I think with" heavy " first hand experiences on IC phono cable posted that the AQ Leopard ( even that's the AQ top of the line. ) is the way to go down there.

Against the Sthealth is really inexpensive and in some ways its design is really interesting to read and maybe to make a test in your system:

https://www.audioquest.com/cables/analog-interconnects/tonearm-cables/leopard

R.

Raul,

Starting around year 2000, I began to put many hours into cable evaluations.  I have great respect for the Stealth cable products.  In the mid-late 2000's, I owned two Stealth Indra ICs and many of their Dream power cords.   That was about the time when my system began to take on a significant gain in refinements.  But in time, I discovered other products that I preferred for one reason or another.  Back to your favorite topic ... trading off one set of distortions for another?  😊  I did not try other Stealth products such as the Sakra IC as its price was outside of my "budget".  But I was intrigued by the Stealth Dream speaker cables.

My cable evaluation results repeatedly came back with the most sensitive link as the IC from line stage to amp.  The second most sensitive link was the tonearm cable.  This is why the tonearm cable discussions here have my attention.  I would have to say that power cords took on third priority.  Swapping in a few highly-reviewed speaker cables resulted in minimal difference vs. other links.  Funds were much better spent elsewhere and thus my speaker cables were constant for many years.  I have since experienced how significant a speaker cable "update" can be, but I needed to do a lot of work first to get there.  Perhaps with my system as it is now, evaluating newer cable models at various links would more clearly show which link might benefit from some new attention.  But for now, things are pretty good here.

Early on, I swapped my "reference" IC with the one under evaluation from from phono-to-line and line-to-amp.  At the start of these early evaluations, I had cheap Belden and Canare IC's.  No matter what cables I had in the system, putting the Belden or Canare in the line to amp link instantly destroyed the magic I had worked so hard to achieve; the result was horrible!  It was not a tonality change but rather a destruction of the decays and harmonic overtones.  If I was a solid state preamp owner, I suspect such differences would not have been as significant .

There were many times when the evaluated cable was neck and neck or even preferred over my current reference IC, at the line to amp link.  When I then replaced the Canare at the phono to line with either of the other two IC's, this change indeed brought on refinements.  The differences here were not to the same degree as the line to amp link.  Any such benefits were irrelevant if the Canare was used into the amp.   So much for the nonsense claim that the "best" cable must always be put at the top of the chain. I had similar results later on with several highly touted ICs from line to amp that destroyed my system's magic.

Moving onto the tonearm cable, differences here were more in line with the benefits of a refined cable to the amp.  And it was the Stealth Hyperphono here that stole the show vs. the three other tonearm cables I owned at that time.  I was unprepared for this difference.  I would like to try a "modern" tonearm cable but the ones I am interested in are insanely expensive.  And others are from cable manufacturers that I could not wait to get out of my system.

Hopefully either in this thread or another, the findings of a "run away discovery" tonearm cable implementation by any of the contributors here will be shared.

John

How would you describe, from a specific sonics standpoint, what your goal is? What about the sound that you are getting now are you not satisfied with and hope to improve?

Thanks.

The intention to experience the different wire options as a wire that can be used as an Internal Tonearm Wire, is a kind of 'last, but not least' investigation.

I have felt quite satisfied and confident in the performance of the assembly of devices in the  home system for a very long time, which ended with the decision being made, that the next area of investigation was to be the ancillaries used as interfaces between the devices.

This started out quite basic, with methods investigated to support the devices in use, and as a result, a variety of ancillaries are in use as equipment support designs / structures.

Running Parallel with the above was the removal of certain Interconnect Cables for New Cables that had modern Wire Designs in use, and I slowly ended up producing a System that was using OCC Silver and OCC Copper Wire Cables at most of the Interfaces as umbilical couplings in the Signal Path.  It was this experience that moved myself on from being a Cable Agnostic and I was quite impressed with the performance achieved through the adding and discarding a Cable until the presentation was attuned to my unique preference.

The investigation were rested with the devices and ancillaries for a few years and the System was enjoyed for the musical encounters it was able to produce.

A new encounter motivated an investigation of the other simple method available to myself to experience new interfaces within the system. Which was to be achieved through embracing the concept of Tube Rolling.

The initial stimuli for this was having joined a HiFi Group and then meeting a individual who has a vast experience of Valves, who is in possession of a Two Generation collection of vintage valves of which there are multiple pristine samples.

The HiFi Group were keen to encourage that my owned Valve Output Stage DAC, Valve Hybrid Phon' , All Valve Input / Output Phon' and the 845 Power Amp's Input Valves were all assessed by the owner of the collection and Valves were suggested to be used for upcoming Tube Rolling demonstrations, to be carried out with Loaned Valves from the collection of Vintage Valves. As I was not always available for a Group Meeting I loaned a device to the Group, and a shortlist of Valve Options would be made known for a a time when I was able to attend.  

A lot of Valves were supplied and various configurations were created. The impact on the device was very noticeable for the improvements made, and when the device was used in the system with the Valve choice made, the effect was even more noticeable. When assessing the Valve influence, consideration was also applied to the Cable Choices made, as these may have also been proportionally instrumental to the overall very good impression being made.

The idea about the Cable Choices led to the curiosity, that now the Valves are known that it be desirable to be acquired, would a carefully considered Cable Exchange further the already good impression made when the acquired Valves are in the System.

I had for a period of time whilst this experimentation was being planned for and taking place, been investigation the very Latest Wire Type Designs that were gaining a popularity in Cables being Marketed from a Selection of Larger Cable Producers Products.

Cable containing the following Wire Types, Hitachi HiFC , 1011, PC Triple C and D.U.C.C were all investigated and reviews were sought out to get a measure on the performance.

What was becoming a commonly seen description was the noticeable improvement PC Triple C and D.U.C.C Wires were having over a OCC Wire Cable.

My first toe dip into this was with an exchange of an Ortofon Cart' Tag Wire to a   PC Triple C tag wire, an initial experience of this Wire was enough to convince myself it was worthy of further investigation for usage as an umbilical at other interfaces.

I tried to acquire PC Triple C Wire as a purpose produced tonearm wire, but learnt the only Tonearm that has it in use, is a $13000 SAEC Model, and it was not an off the shelf wire available for purchase for a Tonearm. 

The Tonearm Builders I am sharing time with and who invite me to their demonstrations of their work, were asked to look into a method to produce a suitable wire for a Tonearm using a stripped back Cable to extract a Wire Strand, but the method has not yet been found to produce a Wire suitable for Internal Wand use  hence the external routed method, as this method will enable the wires to be trialed along with a selection of other wires, as well as with the designers own chosen wire for their models. This should as an experiment further the understanding of these modern Wire Designs in use on a Tonearm, if it is good enough for SAEC in a $13 K arm, there can be no harm in learning of a few things the Company discovered at their design stage.

The motivation to create this demonstration of New Wire Designs on the Tonearms   is solely created from my side, the Tonearm Designers are aware of the compromises that my suggestion to trial the wires can create, when an external mounted wire is used, they remain open minded about the demonstrations and are quite willing to experience my proposals and have already shared between each other a simple solution for mounting routing the Wires and a temporary shielding method, that if all the methods being selected work together, will alleviate the concerns for an unsuccessful demonstration completely. 

From a selfish perspective I am hoping for a PC Triple C or D.U.C.C Tonearm Internal Wiring, as the over the past year the whole of the system has progressively had New Wire Design Cables added, and is now set up with the same wire types being used at all other interfaces between devices, and PC's are the ongoing Cables being exchanged to the New Wire Types.

@jafox   :Btw, Reed tonearms could be a good alternative to you and I understand that you can have not only DIN connector but a choice in the tonearm internal wire.

R.

and can be extremely expensive:

R.

Dear @jafox  : You are rigthand unfortunatelly we audiophiles have no single tiny control about the whole recording proccess other that the kind of LP we buy.

Even we audiophiles have a minimum real/true control at play back overall proccess and that's why we have really selective on each step/change/modification/new item/ we want to do around our room/system.

I think that due of the kind of IC phono cable you are ausing you are rigth that need the DIN pin-5 tonearm output connector.

I posted that due to the quality level of the signal performance levels we have as a target the important issue between continuous cable against non-continuous could be the difference for the better quantity that certainly will be lower quantity difference that when we are changing IC cable through the DIN tonearm connector.

Your IC cables  seems like something " special ":

Evidently the Tru-Glider is an underhung tonearm with zero headshell offset. That’s cool! However the website contains BS typical of other manufacturers of underhung tonearms. They don’t seem to understand their own product. To wit: the claim is for “no anti-skate (presumably because no skating force), no azimuth, and no friction (!)”. The subject has been done to death here, but underhung tonearms DO generate a skating force, although I agree there is no use trying to counter-act it because it changes direction over the course of play. Of course, there IS azimuth any time you set up any cartridge, so I don’t get that claim, and nothing with a bearing, even if it is a string, as in this case, has NO friction. Still, I like the rest of the design, if it doesn’t cost a fortune.

Oops! $4700 to more than $6000.  Too much for my blood.

I wish I had said that 😊

Indeed you did in your ET2 arm discussion.  A posted picture here of the end result would be nice to see.  But the thought of someone using this idea to try many different wire configurations with copper, silver, gold, platinum leads, and to successfully shield this to the phono stage.  Now that makes me 😊.

I’ve thought long and hard about doing that for the Kenwood L07J tonearm, the standard tonearm on the L07D turntable. Just to bypass their own IC and their internal tonearm wires, which are both the original Litzwire type. The Kenwood OEM IC must otherwise be plugged in to the tonearm base, using a massive DIN-type connector that is not compatible with a standard DIN plug. Running wires externally from the cartridge would also, of course, bypass the headshell connections. Just have not gotten around to it yet. Pindac, thanks for pointing out that you mentioned the idea previously. With respect and affection, you sometimes use so many words to say what you want to say that I confess I missed it the first time. Anyway, the idea is evidently not so esoteric, since at least three of us have thought of it independently. Now I am going to Google the Tru-Glider tonearm to see what it’s all about.

I wish I had said that 😊

 Btw, for me it has been a permanent arrangement since with the ET2 I have felt no need to do it internally.  

about routing a Wire Externally for the purpose of trials .....

Now this would be a very cool test!  I assume a little bit of painter's tape to secure the twisted/braided wires at the cartridge and then again at the back of the arm wand, and then secure the cable for the arm's movement to not be hindered by the cable.

what tonearm offers both a continuous wire connection AND an interchangeable headshell?

Here it is: Tru-Glider Tonearm

I've got a Technics SL-1200G; it's got a detachable headshell and I'm perfectly happy with it....

'what tonearm offers both a continuous wire connection AND an interchangeable headshell? '

In reply to the above inquiry, the following is a sentence from a previous mail posted by myself within this Thread.

'Very recently the arm engineer has produced a upgrade detachable Headshell for the arm, that has a much improved coupling to the Wand.'

This redesign for the Headshell has a Removable Part and continuous Tonearm Wire.

The option to route wire continuous to the Phonostage is an option, as well as the option being available, that will omit the commonly seen wire connections at the Headshell / Wand interface but make use the earlier produced models, upgraded termination points for the wire when routed within the wand.

@frogman I am totally on board with your suggestion about routing a Wire Externally for the purpose of trials, and I am due to commence with this on a few differing but Bespoke Tonearm Designs during the upcoming months.

I already have had deliveries of ultra pure Silver and Copper Wires where 0.3mm OD is a sheathed version and the OD is less for the Wires that have a insulating lacquer without a Sheath. 

I am not sure if a Lacquered Wire will be welcomed as a part to be routed within the Wand, but time will tell, especially if it is a high on the list wire for the impression being made.   

**** listen for several weeks on a regular basis to one setup in my own system where I know intimately every component in the pathway, and then to change from setup A to setup B and listen again for an extended period of time to B. Ideally, that would be followed by a second audition of A. ****

Exactly. Trust your ears! I recognize the influence of “placebo effect”, but IMO the road to the best possible sound from one’s system is to keep a healthy amount of skepticism always secondary to what we actually hear.

Jafox, Given the difficulty you describe in comparing tonearm with vs tonearm without, and with which I agree, I choose a second best option, which is to listen for several weeks on a regular basis to one setup in my own system where I know intimately every component in the pathway, and then to change from setup A to setup B and listen again for an extended period of time to B. Ideally, that would be followed by a second audition of A. But you’re quite right, it’s a comparison with more than one variable.

what tonearm offers both a continuous wire connection AND an interchangeable headshell?

I have shared my experience with and impressions of four different tonearm wires in (actually, with the exception of the VDH, “on” is more accurate) my Eminent Technology ET2 tangential tracking arm- the stock VDH silver clad copper, Cardas, Discovery and finally AudioNote silver in a “continuous run from cartridge clips to preamp”. I won’t bore anyone with those impressions again. I also did share that aside from the clearly superior sonics of the AN, the fact that it is far and away the thinnest and most supple of the four allowed for much easier and consistent balancing of the arm. I still own the three different replacement wire looms.

I bring this up again only to point out that it is entirely possible for owners of pivoting tonearms to use a wire loom of a very supple wire such as the AN to run a “continuous from cartridge clips to preamp” EXTERNALLY while leaving the arm in its stock form. That is precisely what I did with my back up arm (Syrinx PU3) when I needed to take the ET2 off my turntable; once when the air pump broke down and once when I needed to dismantle the arm to clean the air capillaries.

What I have done is secure the AN wire (twisted pairs) to the underside of the arm tube at two or three points along its span with thin strips of easily removable painters trim tape. Then create a generous loop around the pivot point, dressed and secured at some point where the arm’s movement won’t be impaired and then continue onward to the preamp. The AN is so thin and supple that whatever amount of additional resistance it may add to the movement of the tonearm is unlikely to be a negative factor; it is that flexible compared to the others. Of course, the wire is totally unshielded and in some listening room environments this may cause issues with noise. I have not experienced this.

Point is that the curious can experience first hand the benefits of “continuous to preamp” tonearm wiring without taking the plunge to full modification of their arm. Frankly, I’ve always been surprised that only one participant in these discussions has ever tried this; to the best of my knowledge.  When one considers the amounts that are spent on tweaks and other items that end up in “the drawer” no longer used, the cost of trying this is very reasonable. Moreover, if one likes what one hears perhaps the very same wire can be supplied to a professional modifier and reduce the cost of a more permanent internal wiring. I would be shocked if most who try this were not, likewise, shocked at the improvement in the sound of their lp playback.

The idea of having a continuous Tonearm Internal Wiring connect to the Cart's Tag Wire Connection Pins, and be free of any connections util it is RCA/XLR terminated to connect to the Phonostage is an age old discussion and will always live on, as the idea of reducing the wiring connections along the wiring route / signal path is seen to have benefits, as the signal path is a continuous material produced from a wiring of choice, as well as having the options added for choices on Tag Wire connectors and RCA/XLR Connectors.

The method when adopted will allow the user, if involved in the selections of materials used in the assembly to feel empowered in the choices, and instrumental in producing a bespoke design for a used device.

The less seen discussions on this subject are the importance of the Wire Type selected and the impact of the loom within the Wand and Pillar on the function of a Tonearm.

A wire needs to be extremely supple offering the minimum resistance to the free operation of the Tonearm, with '0' impact on the Tonearms Mechanical Function being the goal. To achieve a wire that can be routed within the Wand / Pillar and not create an unwanted level of interference to the free operation, a very small gauge wire is the usual candidate, usually found in approx' 30 Gauge (0.2 - 0.3mm).         Wire Gauge such as these will be available with different sheathing and different wire production methods, and even to the eye on observation appear to be extremely supple, certain wire types when compared are with a resistance to yeild their form.

When a wiring is within the Wand and Passing into the Pillar, there is a critical interface point now met within the assembly, where the bespoke chosen wire type and the produced wire loom, will if not very carefully thought out, be a detrimental  impacted on the Tonearms designed function, as the wire choice and configuration for the wire within the Wand / Pillar, will be able to effect the function of the tonearm and impact on the free movement that the bearing assemblies have been designed to create.                                                                                                            Additionally the impact of the chosen wire and methods used to route it,  can potentially require that built in ancillary devices onto the Tonearm may need to be set up to be over compensatory, to be used to counteract the impact of the chosen wire in use, as the ancillaries are designed to create the absolute control of the Stylus Interface when in contact witha LP. Their design function is not to correct a  Tonearm that has encountered a resistance to allow it to move with freedom, from a outcome of a wiring design change.

A Tonearm with a exchanged wiring from the original used wire, but uses the original designs terminations for the wire used in the routing of the wire, is now a bespoke design, that if completed by a competent technician should offer the same mechanical interface properties of the original design.                                                Any comments made on the perceived changes being assessed as a result of a different wire in use are going to be a subjective description, and only available from a very limited amount of individuals who might have received a demonstration, maybe even as little as one individual, that is ensuring their choice is the best option. 

 A Tonearm with a exchanged wiring from the original design, and is produced to have a Wire run continuous from Cart' Pins to Phonostage connections is no longer a design that is the intention of the original producer, it is now a Bespoke Modification and if this modified design is not very carefully produced, where the signal quality is the least of the considerations and using the materials most suitable for the mechanical interface is the utmost consideration, the modification can quite easily prove to be inferior to the original designs end performance.

The Bespoke Modified Arm does not really qualify to be referred to as the original model any longer, it becomes a Sub Category, Such as 'Big Joe's Modded SFR iv mk vii' as it is a substantial design change, that if not carried out by a individual that has the knowledge, can become Tonearm that can impact detrimentally on the original designs function.

From a Personal Stand Point, I am using a Tonearm that is a Bespoke Modification to a Branded model. The design on offer was carefully assessed prior to entering into the purchase, and the dialogue about the modifications, the selected parts in use, the R&D, the micro mechanics being considered, and the friendship formed with the designer is still ongoing. 

I also have in my possession a further selection / surplus of Tonearms, of which one is a Branded Tonearm with a Manufacturer Designed continuous Internal Tonearm Wiring.                                                                                                           None of these Tonearms are able to offer the impression made by the Bespoke Modified Model.

To go out and buy a 'one off' version of a modified Tonearm without having full knowledge of the design considerations, or donate a very respected Tonearm to have a Bespoke and Unique modified Tonearm produced from a service that does not freely communicate the design parameters being used to ensure the Tonearms function is the total consideration, Fortunately is a route I am avoiding.     

Raul,

Thank you for joining this discussion.  Yes, my system has a lot of tubes.  The addictive bloom and decay presence that I had 15 years ago is now much more tamed.  I know you are not a fan of tubes from your many comments in these forums on their distortions.  And I imagine showing you a tube would be like showing a cross to a vampire but I just love these magical glass jewels.

A cartridge must be truer to the recording but unfortunately the cartridge quality level final performance levels depends of other links in the audio system and the tonearm is mainly the cartridge mate that at the end function as a " tone control ".

This goes back to the recording studio's microphones, 100's of feet of disaster microphone cable, the mixing console, etc.  Imagine all of the sonic magic that is lost by the time an LP is cut...or even the master tape.  With all the loss here, does it make sense to be obsessed with parameters such as "tube distortions" and resultant system "tone controls"?  Given the highly distorted resultant LP that ends up on our TT, we all have to accept that no matter how we implement our musical system, the end result is far from the live performance.  Some such home systems sound incredible and others rather atrocious.  This is life.

Regards and enjoy the DISTORTED MUSIC

Oh, AND LONG LIVE TUBES.  8-)

John

The problem with this discussion is that it’s often comparing apples and oranges. For a level playing field you’d need a comparison with one cartridge in the same arm with and without the option of detachable headshell. Like the SME 3009, which was originally available with both options. I never owned these, but I’ve made a comparison that could be regarded as sort of ‘next best’. I own an Audiocraft AC-4400, which has the option of interchangeable armpipes. There are various straight armpipes with fixed headshell as well as an S-type armpipe with SME bayonet to accommodate detachable headshells.
So just for the hell of it I made a comparison with one specific cartridge mounted in the straight armpipe as well as in a headshell connected to the S-type armpipe. Of course everything else remained unchanged, from the tonearm cable all the way to the loudspeakers.

I used a Sato Musen Zen Diamond cartridge as Guinea pig. The choice is purely coincidental, but it’s a suitably revealing albeit old MC cartridge (based on the Victor MC-L1000 direct couple but with diamond cantilever). I used the Audiocraft AS-4PL headshell to keep the comparison as ‘level’ as possible.

It may well be my aging ears, but as much as I tried I was unable to detect a discernible audible difference between both options. Direct switching was impossible because I obviously needed some time to chance over the cartridge between both armpipe/ headshell arrangements. To some folks this will likely invalidate the experiment, but nonetheless I would not make too much of a thing about this issue. If it’s flexibility you want, choose a high quality tonearm with detachable headshell option and don’t loose any sleep over it.

Contrary to Raul’s opinion I think very highly of the FR-64/66fx tonearm, but would strongly advise against having it converted to continuous wiring. If anything the very considerable market value of the 66fx will drop like a brick. Changing the internal wiring to silver could make sense though. Depending on the quality of the original wiring there can be an audible sonic benefit and it won’t have a negative impact on the market value.