And of course if you really must have very low effective mass, there is always the ADC LFA2, 6g total.
https://www.vinylengine.com/library/adc/lmf-2.shtml
Three of my favorite cartridges have very high compliance, the Ortofon MC2000, which vexes the OP, the Acutex 320 series (LPM and M versions, with a compliance of 42), and the B&O MMC1. The latter two are easier to satisfy than the MC2000, since they are intrinsically light weight; whereas the MC2000 weighs 11g all by itself In practice, I have successfully used tonearms in the low range of "medium" effective mass with all of these. I'd try a suspect pairing before going on to turn a tonearm with interchangeable headshells into a fixed headshell type. In a pinch, that CF headshell you have unearthed or an old super light weight aluminum headshell, e.g., SME, would be worth a try.
|
Pindac, Thank you very much for the URL. I have to wonder about the weight of those brass screws, since they are not included in the 5g total. Regardless, this CF headshell is lighter than any of mine.
|
Can you name the specific brand and model, because I own several CF headshells, made by Yamamoto or Oyaide, and they all weigh around 8-10g. Vintage headshells usually made of thin, perforated aluminum would weigh less.
|
I’m running my MC2000 on my Reed 2A with the red cedar arm wand. Probably effective mass in the 10-12 Gm range. No problem. Anyway the TP is in that same range for effective mass. So in that hat respect you’re no better off with the TP. If you want to be a slave to the formula for resonant frequency, then there’s virtually no modern tonearm that works (according to JG Holt you need a 5gm tonearm). Just go for it. Nothing will break.
|
Neon, I lost the thread somewhere. Why does mounting the TP on the Scheu prevent you from auditioning the MC2000? Thanks.
|
Most of us regulars would agree with your philosophy. There is not a single element in either of my two systems that has not been modified (hopefully, upgraded) by me, and I totally agree with the vital importance of structural elements. I consider myself somewhat of an audio cheapskate. But who is being hounded, was my question.
|
Dear Pindac, do you really feel like you or anyone else is “hounded” on this forum?
|
Please translate the German. Is it attributable to some particular source? Also if you have data, as you imply, that would be refreshing.
|
With 10 inch or longer TP, should work fine.
|
This is your model to explain what you believe a priori. That’s fine.
|
Pindac, This is an excerpt from your long post about platter mats, above:
"The AT -666 Vacuum Mat is the most lean with the Tenuto Gun Metal being Lean, but with a hint of Rich injection if only compared to the 666. Rock, Indie, Country, Americana, Orchestra all come to life with these materials, but this is my unique flavour if choice, as are all my preferences.
Another might enjoy the mats capabilities, but prefer different mats to be selected for other genre’s. "
This is where I got the idea you might be inclined to change the platter mat to suit the music. Sorry if that upsets you. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you have a character flaw. I consider myself an oddball for having 5 turntables with 6 tonearms and cartridges up and running into two different systems, at all times. Now THAT is a character flaw of mine.
|
Ralph., I was simply pointing out that there are some who seek to isolate the LP in space above the platter. I did not say I agree with that approach or would embrace it myself.
|
I would think that the cartridge itself is vibrating secondary to the movements of the cantilever. Not all that energy is delivered into the vinyl; what you are hearing is sound created directly by movement of air molecules because of motion of the cantilever. Of course it’s going to be more or less evident, depending upon the compliance of the cartridge, the effective mass of the tonearm, the composition of the body of the cartridge, and the degree to which energy is transmitted into the arm wand and thereby nullified. What energy is delivered into the vinyl to be absorbed by the mat is what’s left. So, while I don’t doubt that there are differences in the intensity of the "music" you can hear with your ear close to the LP, I do doubt that it is all about the record mat. (By the way, this one reason I avoid dust covers while playing LPs; that energy put into the surrounding air by the cartridge gets trapped and can cause resonating of the dust cover. But let’s not re-hash that argument.)
|
Do you actually change mats according to the genre of the music you plan to audition? Your audiophilia must be very tiring and time consuming. My philosophy has been make a choice carefully and live with it.
|
And yet there are those devoted to mats that barely make contact with the LP, like the Resomat or certain cork mats. There’s no accounting for individual taste and rule making is futile.
|
Lots of SP10 Mk3 users have removed the motor assembly from the base chassis and re-installed the motor only in a plinth that permits the coupling you describe. I have nearly achieved the same thing without doing that in my home made plinth, but I do wish I had had the guts to just pull the motor. Steve Dobbins was the first to do it commercially and make a plinth to go with. But this is a sidebar to the question at hand.
Albert Porter's Panzerholz re-plinth does not involve removing the motor assembly from the square chassis. So his plinth is certainly superior to the Technics plinths made for the SP10 Mk2 or Mk3 but is still subject to the issue of which you speak. He deals with that by installing a block of solid iron below the TT. There is a threaded rod (steel or whatever) that screws into the iron block and is adjusted to fit snugly up against the base of the bearing housing. The block is firmly coupled to the chassis, as is the tonearm. I've done the same thing in my home made slate and cherrywood plinth, but I used brass instead of iron; I did not like the idea of installing such a massive piece of iron so close to the permanent magnet that constitutes the rotor of the motor.
|
If I am remembering the spatial relationships correctly, you would need a spacer wide enough to bring the base of the TP up to the level of the top of the square escutcheon that surrounds the platter (on Technics SP10 mk2, mk3, and R). The problem otherwise is that the escutcheon and the location of the VTA tower on the TP together prevent one from twisting the TP so as the arm wand will clear the platter when the arm wand is sitting in its rest position. If the arm wand rests so that it sits partially over the platter, then playing LPs would be awkward and endanger the stylus, if one is not very careful. And who can be very careful after a couple of glasses of wine? This is also assuming one can obtain the proper P2S distance with the TP in that situation, which I don't remember.
|
Ralph, if memory serves my TP would not fit properly, which is to say so that the arm wand would not overhang the platter when at rest using a plinth where the Technics chassis sits above the plinth surface. If one has a plinth designed to sink the escutcheon of the Technics so the two surfaces are level with each other, like with Porter’s Panzerholz plinth, that might work. I’m talking only about SP10 mk2, mk3, and the new R. That’s why I bought a 10.5 inch Reed. Nowadays you could get the 12 inch TP.
|
I once owned a Star Sapphire III and still own a Triplanar. I believe the topology of the Cosmos is identical to the SS. Your answer is no. It won’t work, because the VTA tower on the TP gets in the way. I’m sure Mijostyn will chime in. TP now offer optional longer arm wands, 12 inch might work. Maybe TP can modify yours. The routing of the cables is not the problem; they just go over the top of the deck.
As I write this, I’m wondering whether my memory is playing tricks. The TP won’t work on a Technics SP10 mk2 or mk3 for the same reason, and maybe I’m confusing my experiences with SOTA vs Technics. Like I said, Mijo has more recent experience.
|
