The Arm/Cartridge Matching Myth

This is what a Cartridge's Frequency Response Plot looks like (for those like Atmasphere who do not know).
So let's cut to the Chase.....What can we deduce from Atmasphere's contributions to this Thread?

1. A cartridge's Frequency response is unaltered by the Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency just as I predicted
2. There is not ONE Peer-Reviewed accepted Scientific White Paper proving the existence, extent or affects on the audible experience due to a mismatched Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency
3. When trying to find one.....Atmasphere produces a quaint, anachronistic 63 year-old UNSCIENTIFIC paper on TURNTABLES hoping you won't read it.....because it concludes exactly what I have been saying.
4. Atmasphere claims it was easy to find this 'evidence' (I'll bet it was) and that there are many more out there.....Please please show us.....🤥
5. When forced to admit the article he had posted proved my case....he then retreated to his usual vague unrelated parables

There are several threads on how to reduce woofers from flopping about when playing LPs on this site. and with a lot of loudspeakers if you play material that is too low, the woofers will not sound right as they flop about.

Note the scientific language.....
Yes...."woofers will not sound right as they flop about" because the SET-UP of the particular system is poorly isolated from Structure-Bourne Feedback.
Fix the problem.....don't look for an innocent victim.
I'm convinced that Atmasphere and Mijostyn have both experienced this woofer-pumping and mistracking due to their poorly set-up systems....and we all know about RAUL'S DISASTROUS SET-UP 😱
Is it any wonder he prefers digital....?! 😝

• None of these ardent adherents can actually SHOW you what mistracking and woofer-pumping (due to resonant Frequency) actually looks and sounds like.
• None of them has the guts to demonstrate these artefacts on my dozens of YOUTUBE VIDEOS with mismatched Resonant Frequencies where you can hear and SEE the woofers (note to Mijostyn)
• They will all claim that I may not be able to hear any problems but they are there nevertheless
• But THEY are totally unable to hear or see the problems on my actual videos
• They will then claim that the Videos are not of sufficient quality to hear any of the artefacts despite the fact than delicate, nuanced differences between ALL my cartridges are easily able to be discerned by many Posters on my Hear My Cartridges Thread

So here is the crux of what the defenders of this Myth are able to say....
You might not be able to actually HEAR all the damage, distortions mistracking and other artefacts (because we can't either).....but TRUST us.....they are there nevertheless.

I'd rather trust a band of Caribbean Pirates trying to sell me a parrot 🦜

Ahhh...how things change yet remain the same 🤣
Here's just a sample of the multitude of exchanges between the new 'best' friends on another Thread....
01-15-2020 3:11am

Dear atmasphere : You already had all the time and opportunities to show the evidence I asked about on that specific: " limit trace....".

Today I'm totally convinced that you has no evidence about evidence that we can duplicate in a system or at least evidence.

So Palmer was rigth ( years ago. ) when he proved that your " limit trace..." statement is FALSE.

For my part end of the issue due that now I can confirm that the ones that like me that think that " limit trace.."" does not exist we all are rigth and that's what we need to know thank's to your " answer ".

So never mind about, subject solved.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

01-15-2020 3:55am

Your post is not an answer to what I asked to you:

Simply put, I've answered your question directly several times in this thread alone. I've been avoiding saying this, but at this point its apparent that you don't understand the answer; you respond with literally:

Bla, bla, bla, bla, bla,

Again, electrical damping of an electro-mechanical transducer results in less high frequency output of that transducer. I suggest you study the topic with the same sort of energy that you've used in your attacks.

Most of the real entertaining Posts from Raul have been deleted by the Moderators....😂

Raul, you are a mean one. To say a guy has no common sense? That is really hitting below the belt.

My ears have natural frequencies also which interact with the resonant frequencies of the platter, cartridge and tonearm levitating my speaker cables 3 inches off the floor. I don't even need amplifiers anymore the sound just emanates:)

Dear @geoffkait  : Sorry for that post, I was thinking only in the myth.

Yes, you are rigth.

R.

The external mechanical resonances circa 8-12 Hz excite the natural frequencies of the platter, cartridge and tonearm, thereby distorting the electromagnetic signal in wires. It’s the same idea behind suspending cables and isolating amplifiers or CD players, whatever. I.e., vibration not in the audio range affect the sound. RF is not in the audio frequency range, either. Nevertheless ....

Dear @mijostyn : Not only that. Additional has not common sense.

Btw, common sense is main part of any science.  Einstein, Newton, Galileo and the like had high levels of common sense.

I think that after six years the myth proposal is today inside the stupidity land.

R.

The rumble and low frequency resonance also causes Doppler distortion of every other frequency being produced by the woofer.

Halcro you obviously can not hear or observe the difference between a properly set up turntable and an improperly set up one. I have come to understand Halcro now. He is both blind and deaf. Go figure. 

Being an amplifier designer and manufacturer.....you would have all the electronic gear available to show us exactly how a cartridge's Frequency Response Plot changes with Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency?

Here's your chance to put me out of my misery and prove me WRONG!!!!

I believe I already did. As you saw in the paper I linked (presented to AES, and so was reviewed by the members- it is bona fide IOW) incorrect mechanical resonance can result in excess rumble.


**Again**: this gobbles up amplifier power and results in greater intermodulation on account of the amplifier itself. There is no way around this simple fact as without an amplifier and transducer, you cannot play the LP. Now this to me seems like a fairly simple fact. There are several threads on how to reduce woofers from flopping about when playing LPs on this site. and with a lot of loudspeakers if you play material that is too low, the woofers will not sound right as they flop about. Clearly, it affects the

SOUND

-as you put it.


Now the paper I linked stated that the mechanical resonance do not affect the audio band 20-20KHz. Despite this, it makes clear that artifacts will arise, and for the reasons I stated (and that many here have experienced) eliminating those artifacts by getting the setup right does indeed affect sound quality. So we can draw only a limited number of conclusions!

1) you don't actually play LPs so would have no idea of what I'm talking about

OR

2) you are trolling.

In either case, the premise of this thread is debunked. Knock it off.

Dear @halcro  : With all respect you have a hard head because you read but not really READ becauise every time you post show that you don't understand nothing of all what all those gentlemans posted years ago in this and other forums and that I posted to you and tell you at least twice time in this thread that you READ IT VERY CAREFULLY and your posts show that you did not or understand nothing about.

In the other side you was who post this thread and in your OP you ( that are asking for SCIENCE. ) don't show not only true evidence on the main subject ( MYTH. ) where proves what you are supporting  and no one can read there that SCIENCE when you are tghe first person that must prove what you are supporting ( MYTH. ) in your OP.

No one has to prove you that you are wrong ( even that a lot of gentlemans here already PROVED. ) instead you that are the proposer is the one and first one that need with SCIENCE to prove that is a MYTH and please don't repeat again that joke ( as a prove. ) " hear my cartridges " that of SCIENCE has nothing .

All those true opinions I posted for you read it carefully have a lot lot more SCIENCE that your " hear my cartridges " or all what you are posted here trying to said you are rigth.

Do you want that I use the rigth word to name your beahavior on that critical an important  subject?, because no matters what you are totally wrong till you PROVE with SCIENCE that you are rigth.

Please don't ask to @atmasphere  that he use that science to do it, it is not his responsability. IT IS YOU WHO HAS THE MAIN RESPONSABILITY TO DO IT WAS YOU WHO STARTED THE THREAD WITH OUT ANY PROVE, so and if you can't do it ( that I know for sure you can't and not only: no one can't to prove that exist that myth. No one. ) at least try to post something that stop to shows that you  have a serious problem in your brain supporting your negative attitude.

Please prove that exist that MYTH as you said it SIX YEARS AGO and that even all those years today you still support it with no evidence that can prove your words or that you learned " something " about.

R.

And now that you've re-entered the 'fray' Atmasphere......
Being an amplifier designer and manufacturer.....you would have all the electronic gear available to show us exactly how a cartridge's Frequency Response Plot changes with Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency?

Here's your chance to put me out of my misery and prove me WRONG!!!!
Not scientific enough for you......?🤗

Thank you Atmasphere for posting that Link to a paper presented 43 years ago.
I presume you infer that nothing has changed in the intervening period?

As I do with most Reports and Papers......I go firstly to the Conclusions 🙃

In this paper we have pointed out that traditional specifications like rumble, wow and flutter and required tracking force are both unreliable and inadequate. Furthermore, they are strongly influenced by the actual combination of motor, arm, cartridge and record, all of which are often left to random decisions by the Hi-Fi consumer. By the use of modern test equipment we have tried to throw a little light on the causes and influence of the interface problems between the elements in a turntable. Assisted by listening tests one can conclude that the fundamental problem creating parameter is the frequency response of the turntable below 20 Hz. Most modern turntables ieave much to be desired, typically they have resonance peaks of 5 — 10dB at 5 — 7 Hz. The first thing to do is to raise the frequency to 1 5 — 1 8 Hz and then ideally damp the system to a Q of 0,5, letting response roli off at preferably 1 2 dB/oct. In pursuit of this goal one should not make trade offs with respect to rigidity of the tonearm tube and fixture. Flexing in the arm and other spurious resonances could then be the result and destroy the stability of the stereo image. Finally in Part 2 we have focused on a type of distortion that is most clearly seen in the time domain: Early reflections. Our investigation tells us that here is an area which, at present, has rather poor correlation between the measurement methods available and the impact on the sound quality.

POOR CORRELATION BETWEEN THE MEASUREMENT METHODS AVAILABLE AND THE IMPACT ON SOUND QUALITY

This Resonant Frequency has ZERO affect on the sound quality of a particular tonearm/cartridge combination

That's what I said in my opening to this Thread 🧐
But this Link is not primarily concerned with the Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency (despite Atmasphere's attempt to suggest it is).
It is....as its Title suggests....a Paper on 

Audible Effects of Mechanical Resonances in Turntables

Turntables.....turntables.....TURNTABLES.....?? 🤣

Now to the nitty but not so gritty.....
This Paper....although prepared by respected engineers and scientists in good faith in 1957....is NOT a Peer-Reviewed White Paper accepted as SCIENCE.
For that to occur......the Testing Procedures and Results need to be independently replicated and consistently duplicated.
None of these Tests and Results has been replicated.....nor can they be for the results are entirely dependent on the turntable used, the isolation employed, the tonearms used and the cartridges and headshells selected.
This Paper is NOT SCIENCE and I would have expected a qualified Electrical Engineer to recognise this 🤔

The perception of wow and flutter, as well as rumble all affect the 'SOUND'. Rumble goobles up amplifier power and you can bet that increases IMD, which affects the 'SOUND'

"and you can BET that increases IMD which affects the SOUND"
Hmmm.....sounds like a real scientific argument to me 🤣
So now we have Atmasphere introducing 'Wow and Flutter', 'Rumble' and 'IMD' all of which are mentioned in the Paper he introduced on TURNTABLES.....and none of which has been mentioned before by REAL scientists (like Kirkus and Tonywin) in relation to Tonearm Resonant Frequency.

Why don't you point out the audible effects of all these artefacts in my YouTube Videos so that people actually have some 'baseline' for the horrors that you continue to warn us about.....?

The whole premise of this thread is patently ridiculous! knock it off.

Nothing to see here Atmasphere says....
Don't listen for yourselves (which will cost you nothing).....
Believe me and what I say because I know what you should listen to 🤥

Huh? My post has everything to do with this discussion. Did you read the OP?  Myth is as good as a mile. 

@geoffkait  : That's not the main subject of this thread. Can you share " something " different to what other gentlemans already posted supporting that the myth is not a myth or if you think it's a myth then post according what you support?

I said that because as lewm you opened a new " window " here. Yes, you are free to post what you want it. This is a free world.

Thank's in advance,
R.

Dear @atmasphere  : I forgot I have that link, thank's to share it because it's acontundent additional evidence that that " myth " isnot amyth at all but something real and something we all have to take care about.

But six years ago you posted supporting the importance of cartridge/tonearm resonance frequency subject.

@mijostyn,agree with you.

R.

Here’s your problem. The outside forces (low frequency seismic type) that can have an impact on the turntable platter, cartridge and tonearm are in the same part of the spectrum as their resonant frequencies. Most suspended turntables are tuned too high to stop the outside forces from doing their nefarious work.

But 99.9% of "suspended" turntables are fatally flawed in their design, on one way or another.  This is my opinion based on listening and looking. The ideas are good; the execution is questionable. Now, if you're talking about Minus K or Herzan platforms, that is another story. 

Thanks Ralph.
I just wanted to point out that there are two ways to view the tonearm cartridge "system" From a sonic (electrical) point of view the system is a high pass filter. But from a mechanical point of view it is a low pass filter. It moves at low frequencies and is rigid at high frequencies. the cross over point is at the resonance frequency.
Kirkus, if you are still watching. If a suspended table is tuned correctly, the tonearm mounted to the suspended platform along with the platter and the tone arm/cartridge are set up correctly outside forces within reason will have no effect on the system. If I provide a mechanical input the system just bounces around together and the record continues playing like nothing happened. 

But not one single Peer-Reviewed Scientific White Paper demonstrating the relationship between Resonant Frequency and SOUND...🤯

This statement is false and blatantly so.

If the mechanical resonance ('Resonant Frequency' per above) is too high, the cartridge may not stay in the groove or may simply mistrack with complex material. This creates distortion and is certainly affecting the 'SOUND'.

There are papers on the topic. Didn't take long to find either:
http://www.laudioexperience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Bruel-Kjaer-Audible-Effects-of-Mechanical-...
Pay attention to the references and you will see further papers on the topic.


The perception of wow and flutter, as well as rumble all affect the 'SOUND'. Rumble goobles up amplifier power and you can bet that increases IMD, which affects the 'SOUND'


The whole premise of this thread is patently ridiculous! knock it off.

Dear @halcro : First don’t try to avoid the inevitable, you just can’t do it.
Every one that read what others gentlemans/audiophiles with very high knowledge levels opinions with facts/evidence that I posted understand with out doubt what you after more than 6 years don’t do it. I said and now your posts confirm it: you have a personal big big problem.


""" until he has the last word. """ really? because my post was not about what I say on the subject but what other gentlemans posted in this thread and other forums. As I said please don’t try to avoid the inevitable.

"" Ortofon where there is not a single mention of the affect on the SOUND from the cartridge.
It is all about trackability of WARPED records """


"" also confirm that the issue is purely TRACKABILITY.......no claims regarding the affects on SOUND. ""


Please ask you: why cartridge designers put so much effort in the tracking cartridge abilities through the adecuated compliance/suspension/effective stylus ti´mass/ stylus shape, cantilever material, etc, etc.?

The differences in SOUND between a cartridge with 5cu ( everything the same. ) and other same design cartridge with 14cu is night and day because tracking ability is what permit to the stilus tip tracking in a way better form following the LP surface recorded grooves modulations. A cartridge with low compliance can’t give us all the information that are recorded in the grooves modulations in the same way that a higher compliance same model.
TRACKING ABILITIES MAKES AUDIBLE DIFFERENCES IN THE SOUND.

That you can’t hear it is another matters and a problem you have and that does not affects to any one else.

In the other side all LP are warped and the " outer platter ring " can’t fix it because that device helps for the macro warps but the micro ones no one can’t do  nothing about and we have to think that the stylus tip works at MICRO levels, so that micro warps changes the SOUND and tracking abilities in the cartridge ( along other issues. ) makes a difference. Additional to that is the off-center and feedback where boths effects works to " disturb " that cartridge/arm resonance frequency and directly affects/change the SOUND we perceive.



""" There is little SCIENCE behind it.....
It hasn’t been tested, studied, verified, quantified nor analysed. """


That you can’t understand it only say that all the ones that posted here are rigth and certainly even that you deny it: are wrong for your misunderstood. Tha’s all.


But you posted as part of your false arguments a non-scientific excercise:

""" is my Thread ’Hear My Cartridges """

sorry but that’s a good joke nothing more.


Again, re-read carefully the evidence on those very good posts because all those are the ones that already put the " last word " in the myth subject that’s as @mijostyn said: " this is not one of them.

As he said: """ you are intentionally misleading people ."""

Again, sorry but in this regards/myth/issue , for say the least, you are wrong with your terrible misunderstood.

I’m not saying it, all those posts by those gentlemans already said it. The last word came from all of them, like it or not.


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Maybe a rookie can’t understand nothing about the main subject but you have a lot of years in audio and started this thread 6 years ago. What did you learn in those years? because your last two posts confirm that you learned nothing about. I’m not saying that but your self posts.

I didn't. Ortofon did.

Oh....ok.
As long as you say so.....

Halcro, you are intentionally misleading people. There are many myths in Hi Fi. This is not one of them.  https://www.ortofon.com/support/support-hifi/resonance-frequency/

So now we have most scientists/physicists and importantly.....Ortofon agreeing with my fundamental opening statement

This Resonant Frequency has ZERO affect on the sound quality of a particular tonearm/cartridge combination

So what exactly is the punishment for those audiophiles who ignore the recommended Resonant Frequency Guidelines as I do....?
IF you sometimes play a warped record and IF that record contains subsonic bass information and IF your turntable is mounted on a springy wooden floor and IF you happen to walk on this springy wooden floor when this warped record containing subsonic frequency information is playing.......the cartridge MAY mistrack!!!! 😱
It MAY mistrack.....it's a POSSIBILITY......it's not guaranteed to occur and no-one can tell you the 'likelihood' or 'percentages' because that science has never been studied.
I can tell you it's happened to me ONCE in 40 years with a badly warped record (I only have three out of a thousand).
And guess what......an OUTER PLATTER RING solved the warped record problem 😃
So if that's the 'worst' thing that can happen to me......is it really worth ignoring HALF the cartridges out there because I might have a high-mass tonearm? 
Especially when ALL my high-compliance MM cartridges sound their best in my EXTREMELY high-mass FR-66S tonearm?

I can understand scientists getting excited about the Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency.....
It is one of the only true scientific equations which can be tested and proven in the turntable/arm/cartridge assemblage and I think....because of that, they have over-estimated its importance.
But here's the real trick.......
The 8Hz-12Hz part of the story is NOT science.....
Like a magician practicing legerdemain (don't look at my hands)......they slip in the 8Hz-12Hz bit as if it WERE part of the 'Resonant Frequency' science....✋🤚
The 8Hz-12Hz is merely an educated 'Rule-of-Thumb' (that's why Ortofon don't mention it).
There is little SCIENCE behind it.....
It hasn't been tested, studied, verified, quantified nor analysed.

To emphasise the lack of 'real' science behind this subject, it is accepted that science and formulae work in two directions.
If x=2y.....then 2y=x
One must be able to 'reverse-engineer' REAL science.
If an Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency of 6Hz or 16Hz is truly a disaster to be avoided.....then science dictates that one must 'recognise' when one HEARS either of these combinations playing.

HERE is my Thread 'Hear My Cartridges 🎶'.....
There are nearly 150 YouTube recordings of dozens of cartridges with 6 different tonearms on two different turntables.
I would estimate there are perhaps 20%-30% recordings with the Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency outside the recommended range.
If anyone can accurately pick the recordings and define how far 'above' or 'below' the recommended 8-12Hz Resonant Frequency they are.....I may revise my recommendation to completely ignore this malicious MYTH....🤔

I always hesitate in responding to any Post by Raul as it invariably encourages him to continue what he imagines, is an actual dialogue.
This almost always results in bitter and defamatory statements until he has the last word.
So I will not respond to any further attempts on his part to interject himself.
However...I'm actually grateful for his 'reminders' of what others have contributed to this discussion as it confirms what I have postulated from the start:-

• The Tonearm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency has zero affect on the SOUND of a cartridge

Read very carefully the first quote from Ortofon where there is not a single mention of the affect on the SOUND from the cartridge.
It is all about trackability of WARPED records.

if you stick a high compliance cartridge on to a high mass arm..it will generally work...but tracking anything other than a perfectly flat record will cause undamped vibrations in the arm because the suspension is too soft to recover after a warp

This is not in dispute.....
My opening statement to this Thread states exactly that 🤗

Other quotes by respected individuals like Kirkus and Tonywin also confirm that the issue is purely TRACKABILITY.......no claims regarding the affects on SOUND.
But even Kirkus is sometimes prone to include 'opinion' rather than 'fact'.
Dlaloum and Fleib appear to me to be autodidacts with vast experience but insufficient scientific qualifications.....
However even they make no valid claims about the SOUND of the cartridge......

The consensus is heavily in favour of:-

• TRACKABILITY
• SUSCEPTABILITY TO FOOTFALLS
• SUSCEPTABILITY TO FEEDBACK 

Again, no arguments from me 👍

If anyone does have an issue with 'footfalls', 'trackability', 'woofer-pumping' or 'feedback' it would be worth trying to damp the tonearm and/or lower/increase the Arm/Cartridge Resonant Frequency to see if it helps.

My only caveat here is that this is a 'band-aid' solution to a far greater inherent problem.
If your turntable is not perfectly isolated from Structure-Bourne Feedback between 2Hz-10Hz.....you are likely to experience many other audible problems than 'trackability' 🥴

Dear @halcro : I know that if you are or can’t be aware/detect something then and no matter what your belive is that that " thing " tha’s happening just does not exist for you.

For several years now and in different threads I already told you that no matters what your room/system impedes ( I don’t want to repeat my in the past wide explanations/facts about. ) that you can be aware not only of this critical " myth " ( as you name it. ) but many other important audio subjects.

Please do it a favor ( for the very first time in your life. ) and read very carefully all the different evidences/facts that several gentlemans ( some of them with better knowledge levels that you or me. ) posted in this thread and in others about the issue:


https://www.ortofon.com/support/support-hifi/resonance-frequency/


""

compliance is a measure of how springy the suspension is...
so a high compliance cartridge has a fairly soft suspension...ie the suspension is easily compressed, it is highly complaint
... if you stick a high compliance cartridge on to a high mass arm..it will generally work...but tracking anything other than a perfectly flat record will cause undamped vibrations in the arm because the suspension is too soft to recover after a warp...or while tracking heavily modulated grooves of high amplitude waves
those vibrations wil affect the stylus’ ability to trace the record groove properly..and unwanted resonances may intrude upon the audible frequencies caused by this mis match...
think of a heavy car on soft suspension springs...when it goes over a bump..it wobbles for a long period of time before it comes to rest...

the opposite applies for a low complaince cartridge and a low mass arm... the low compliance of the cantilver’s suspension (e.g. fairly rigid, does not deflect much under a light mass) added to a low mass arm.(eg less inertia..so requires less force to move it) will lead to mistracking and in some cases an inability to correctly follow a record that is anything other than perfectly flat... also the stylus will struggle to follow the groove without moving the whole arm as well on large modulations in the record...ie bass notes..
same car analogy... light car on stiff springs...meets bump... the car will spend most of its time off the ground when it hits a bump at speed...and the tyres will have trouble following the up and downs of the roads surface because there is not enough mass acting on the stiff suspension ..

its basically a juggling act and you can get away with fairly extreme combinations but ideally you want to settle for a decent mechanical match between the mass of your arm..and how soft or stiff the suspension in your cartridge is...

the effective mass is the mass that the cartridge ’see’s at the end of the tonearm... some arms are heavier in ’mass’ but concentrate that mass near the pivot so the end of the tonearm may have a lower effective mass acting upon the stylus.... think of tapered tonearms...where the mass increases towards the pivot...or arms with heavy bearing assemblies that use a thin tonearm tube...

the balance you aim for basically..is to keep the stylus moving as independently from the arm as possible..without causing any vibration that will feed into the arm and back into the cartridge...ie wobbling... on the other side...you want the stylus to follow the groove as closely as possible without being disturbed (vibrated unecessarily)by warps in the record or losing contact with the groove walls.. ""





""" The thing that can take care of rather large mismatches is tonearm damping. Damping the tonearm´s movements is a key in getting better low frequency stability. ""




dlaloum:


"" any sprung system will have a resonance point at which it moves most easily - energy will tend to get channeled into that frequency resulting in a peak in amplitude.

The mass/springing system of the tonearm, where the only spring is the suspension of the cartridge works in the same way.

Even when the resonant frequency is at the "ideal" frequency of 10Hz, what happens is anything near that frequency will tend to excite the sprung system, and magnify those frequencies.

Test records have tracks of low frequency sweeps - basically a tone at a set level with gradually dropping or increasing frequency usually starting at 3 or 5 Hz and rising to 20Hz or 25Hz.

If you record this track and plot the amplitude to frequency, you will note that it does not reflect a line (as it theoretically should) but shows a marked peak at the resonant frequency. Depending on the arm/cartridge this peak can be anywhere from 2-3db (ok) up to 8db+ (bad).

The peak is not a narrow one, and usually influences frequencies on either side of the maximum point to a lesser extent.

As the RF (resonant frequency) rises it can start to impact on the audible low frequency response of the system - a substantial boost in amplitude at 15Hz as an example can cause huge subwoofer/woofer pumping, sucking up amplifier current, causing intermodulation of the bass frequencies, and generally affecting the sound as a result. (amps being under pressure using up all its grunt moving the woofers ends up losing its sweetness in the high end...) This is one of the reasons golden age phono centric amps often have a subsonic filter!

As the RF drops it starts to approach the frequencies generated by things like footfalls, and other vibrations external to the TT.

If you watch an arm/cartridge at its resonant frequency it clearly starts to "wobble" - there is substantial physical movement.. as it rises the needle will get pulled slightly back, as it drops it will get pushed slightly forward, a form of wow that is seldom considered, but does affect all frequencies reproduced.

Additionally the movement generates vibrations in the entire system which in turn intermodulate with the signal, generating other spurious "noise" (Intermodulation Distortion.).

Also when the RF is triggered, the cartridge movement can cause mistracking - with all of its associated problems, including increased wear and tear on record and stylus!

A well tuned arm/cartridge have the RF positioned where it does the least harm - by keeping it away from footfall/external vibration frequencies, and the resonant frequencies of the TT suspension (usually around 5Hz), keeping it away from the audio range (15Hz+) and if possible keeping its amplitude as small as possible.

Regardless of the final RF, the resonance remains an undesirable aspect of TT technology.

There is a way to control it, it is called damping. Damping can 1) reduce the amplitude of the RF, and 2) slightly shift the peak frequency.
The most common damping is fluid damping using a paddle system in an oil bath attached to the arm - it provides a slight resistance in a frequency sensitive way - the end result can be very effective. (the damping can be internal within the tonearm pivot column, external, it can be done with fluid or electro magnetic servo means...)

As an example, my JVC turntable has a damped arm - running a TK9e cartridge, I measured the resonant frequency at 5.9Hz - this being with the damping disabled.
Enabling the damping "widened" the peak somewhat - going from 5.8Hz to 6.5Hz, but dropped its peak from +4db down to +1db.
The stylus compliance is 31cu, the arm mass calculated out to 23.8g (including cartridge and fixings) - so high mass tonearm with high compliance cartridge - resulting in low RF (much too low).

With damping disabled - the mistracking was relatively obvious - and the system was very very sensitive to anyone walking around the house.
With damping enabled - the mistracking disappeared, and footfall sensitivity although still there, became much much reduced.

This is clearly NOT an ideal setup - I can make it useable with damping - but it will be better if I can lighten the mass by 4g or 5g with a lighter headshell.
And then I can still damp the resulting higher RF....

Some test records have an interesting track that can be used to identify the RF they run the low frequency sweep tone, at the same time as a steady audible tone...

When the arm hits the resonant frequency you clearly hear the tone "warble" - a result of the arm/cartridge movement.

A lesser and more subtle version of this happens when you play a record, and the arm is excited at its RF.

I strongly recommend damped tonearms regardless of the RF... ""





tonywin:


""" Tracking force does not affect the natural frequency of the cartridge/tonearm system- unless you have so much tracking force that the cartridge suspension is bottomed out. You’ll know that is the case if you see a thin ribbon of vinyl curling up behind the needle while playing a record.
Effective Mass is a shortcut for calculating the tonearm/cartridge system natural frequency. Effective mass is really the inertia of the tonearm expressed in grams. That’s because the tonearm is resting on a fulcrum (pivot). The tonearm and counterweight weigh much more than just a few grams. Additionally, the effective mass can vary depending on the position of the counterweight. So a lower mass cartridge will lower the effective mass of the tonearm since the counter weight will be closer to the pivot. I guess the tonearm manufactures provide us with a nominal value. Don’t forget to add the mass of the cartridge, not just the spring rate to the natural frequency calculation.
The only magic about 10Hz +/-2 Hz is that this is the "quiet" area. Below 8 Hz is the range of record warps and footfalls. Above 16 Hz is getting into the range of the music. The tonearm/cartridge system is still responding at 10Hz. Any energy input will make it respond at that frequency. The key is not to have input at 10Hz. This is so the inherent damping of the stylus suspension and any tonearm pivot bearing friction can be effective at keeping the tonearm/cartridge calm. That small amount of damping keeps things under control. If the tonearm system has a response at say 3-5Hz then the resonance- infinite energy out will overwhelm the damping properties and the tonearm will be greatly excited when rising over a record warp. You could certainly not have a problem with a tonearm system response of 5Hz as long as the records are perfectly flat, hole dead center and the turntable well isolated from footfalls.
I had a cartridge/tonearm system at 16 Hz once. It sounded ok but when I looked closely, the stylus was constanltly moving up and down. I rectified the problem by adding a 4 gram mass to the headshell. That dropped the natural frequency to about 10Hz. Everything was steady then.
The danger is that being outside the quiet zone (10Hz +/-) can result in excessive wear or even damage to your cartridge and records- even if it sounds fine. """




fleib:

"" Even though there’s normally no musical content below 20Hz, there is a variety of noise caused by friction, and the mechanical reality of tracking.
What’s the amplitude peak of undamped low frequency resonance? What exactly is it that’s resonating, your cantilever perhaps? Ever hear of intermodulation distortion?

This is all well documented for decades now. Imperfect equipment and set-up can allow acoustic and mechanical feedback to wreck havoc that is absent with digital.

If low frequency resonance is near the audio band, say 18Hz, then 2nd harmonic intermodulation is 36Hz.
This is from The Audio Dictionary:
http://books.google.com/books?id=L38MrvScG3gC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=low+frequency+resonant... """



timeltel:

""" From 35/40 years back, lots of informative data:
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-03-04-7501b.pdf

If you’re interested in credentials, Google Lee Phoenix.

Starting on pg. 9, the practical Peter Prichard; "We really don’t know quite what we’re doing in this industry":
http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/pdf/bass/BASS-04-08-7605b.pdf

Sources of resonance excitation: "The vibration input to the pickup (both signal and warp) is represented by the constant current generator exciting the circuit. The motion of the stylus assembly is modeled by the current in the CR branch, which shows that the circuit is a high-pass filter, with a resonant peak at the corner frequency."
http://shure.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4072#PhonoArmDamping ""




atmasphere:


""" Henry, Its more than being about warped records, if you read inbetween the lines of Kirkus’s post above- if the effective mass is incorrect, you can actually have the stylus jump out of the groove of a perfectly flat, concentric LP.

An excellent example is a Grado on a Graham 2.2- does the well-known ’Grado dance’ shortly before exiting stage left (IOW, jumps out of the groove).

The other issue is you won’t be able to get the cartridge to track complex material correctly. So its a big deal and not just about warp. ""




kirkus:


""

This Resonant Frequency has ZERO affect on the sound quality of a particular tonearm/cartridge combination and I have proved it hundreds of times with a dozen different arms and over 40 cartridges.

Hi Halcro . . . I think the main conceptual problem here is that the resonant frequency is only one parameter that’s descriptive of the tonearm/cartridge resonance envelope. Keep in mind that the tonearm/cartridge combination is a mechanical high-pass filter, and if there is a resonant peak . . . mathematically it must be a multi-pole system. This means that affecting any element changes not only the resonant frequency, but the width and height of the peak (Q), the transition-band slope, and the amount and periodicity of any pass-band ripple.

The difference between 8 and 12 Hz really is very little in the frequency domain - at 1/3-octave it’s the same as two adjacent bands on a 31-band EQ. And while the tonearm/cartridge system is indeed multi-order, its filter slope isn’t anywhere near steep enough to make much difference in LF response or warp-immunity simply with a change of frequency. Rather, the effect of raising the tonearm mass for a given cartridge usually increases the Q of the filter in addition to lowering the resonant frequency; that is, the resonant peak becomes higher and narrower.

The trade-offs of raising the system Q are the same as for any electrical filter: the "benefits" are that the transition-band (immediately below the resonant frequency) becomes sharper and more selective, and the pass-band (area above the resonant frequency) becomes overall "flatter". The "drawbacks" are that the system becomes dramatically more sensitive to energy imparted at the resonant frequency, the pass-band ripple increases, and increased ringing in the time-domain (impulse) response.

Pragmatically, the main issue will be the extent to which your turntable and environment conduct energy into the tonearm/cartridge system, and at what frequencies. If you’re using non-suspended turntables, on sturdy furniture, in a concrete building, then you’re probably going to have fewer issues with subsonic resonances, but your system will be more prone to acoustic energy conducted back into the tonearm . . . and a heavier, more rigid tonearm definitely helps to control and dampen this.

But for suspended turntables, springy wooden building structures, heavy support furniture sitting on carpet etc. etc. . . . indeterminately increasing the Q of the tonearm/cartridge system is playing with fire. Each of these additional spring/mass systems can potentially combine to create a condition where the system is extremely sensitive to subsonic and low-bass energy. Many view this as a reason to universally condemn suspended turntables . . . but it’s simply a different type of energy to which the system is susceptible, and the trade-off for better immunity to conducted energy within the audio range.

But regardless of the type of turntable design, domicile construction, or support furniture . . . I seem to see fairly regular inquiries on these fora for help to solve the issue of woofer-pumping while playing records. Much of the time the owner has already followed this sort of advice . . .

The best match for ANY cartridge ever made….is simply the very best tonearm you can afford…whatever its Effective Mass

Given that the prime mechanism determining susceptibility to this phenomenon is the tonearm/cartridge resonance envelope . . . the notion that this issue could be avoided simply by spending more money on a "better" tonearm seems a bit unreasonable to me. It’s simply far more effective to change to a lower-compliance cartridge, thereby creating a system with a lower-Q resonance envelope at a slightly higher frequency. """


If after you read it all those excellent information you still think that because yo just can’t be aware of that issue does not exist and is only a " myth " then you have a big big personal problem.

Btw, @mijostyn is rigth.

Think for a moment how could be that several knowledge gentlemans/audiophiles are wrong and only you are rigth? ? ! ! How????? What did you learn all those years from the day started this thread? ? What? ? 


Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Imd distortion measurments would be good to add to such an experiment...

Despite the lack of scientific evidence available for those making the same claims as Mijostyn.....it rarely prevents them continuing with exactly the same claims.
Their usual segue is to  postulate that many things in audio cannot be proven by science.......cable differences, similar amplifier specifications sounding differently, speakers with similar test results sounding differently etc.
Don't be fooled by this disingenuous argument because it is they...the ones making this claim, who are introducing 'science' (Arm/Cartridge Resonance Frequency) to arrive at a conclusion unsupported by that 'science'.

It provoked a 'thought exercise' which leads me to a 'theory' as yet unsupported by scientific evidence.
I predict that any cartridge will have the same Frequency Response Plot Graph regardless of the Arm/Cartridge Resonance it 'sees'.....

This is really sticking my neck out because any electronics technician or even audiophiles with an oscilloscope can very easily prove me wrong here 🤣
A kewpie doll to the first one who does.....👼

If you get between 8 and 12 Hz you are done. Put the record away until you change cartridges.

@mijostyn, so you are saying there is NO difference to the 'sound' within this 8-12Hz Band....?
A 50% change is the Resonant Frequency has zero affect on the SOUND...?
But when we get to 13Hz (a mere 8% increase over 12Hz).....you will suddenly hear it?!
The conclusion from this (if it were true) is that it must be a logarithmic progression and the 'sound' will collapse spectacularly at 14Hz, 15Hz, 16Hz......
This is so easy to scientifically prove, there must be dozens of Phd Theses and 'Peer-Reviewed' White Papers on this very subject...?
Unfortunately there is NONE 🧐
Not one....zilch....bupkis....nada.
Oh there are plenty of 'Statements', 'Opinions posing as Fact', even 'unsubstantiated claims' by respected tonearm/turntable/cartridge designers.......
But not one single Peer-Reviewed Scientific White Paper demonstrating the relationship between Resonant Frequency and SOUND...🤯

You claim to have personal experiences to substantiate your convictions, but so do I....
I have literally tested hundreds of different arm/cartridge combinations using the Shure Audio Obstacle Course Test Record to obtain the 'real' Resonant Frequencies of the Arm/Cartridge combinations (theoretical calculations will NEVER be correct as Compliance is a 'moving target' as is Effective Mass).

Now I am NOT saying that there aren't 'differences' in the performances of various cartridges with various arms...🙃
I have spent the last ten years trying to find the 'happy' combinations (see my 'Hear My Cartridges' Thread).....
But the reasons for these differences are multifarious, complex and in many cases.....still unknown to us.
The design and material of the Headshell will have significant effects on the sound in almost ALL cases 🤗

I don't aim to convince you (or anyone else) who holds this misunderstood view of the Cartridge/Arm resonant Frequency 'myth'....
Sleep warm and cuddly with your convictions....
A world of great sounds is forever closed to you 👎

For those who have an open mind....you have nothing to lose by just trying it 🙃
Why wrack your brains getting your knickers in a knot over theoretical calculations when it's just so easy to try it and LISTEN...just as Howardalex did with his FR-66S and Shure?
Life is too short.
Let the music begin.....🎹🎼

Interesting.
Rules were made to be broken, especially in audio.

@lewm  re the Shure V15 111 in the FR66s tonearm, I’ve now installed a new JICO replacement stylus and cantilever (which includes the suspension) so the cartridge should now be a high compliance job again (assuming it wasn’t due to the suspension seizing up due to age).
It sounds excellent and on the Hi Fi news lateral and vertical resonance tests there was minor resonance at 9hz  both lateral and vertical.
When I say sounds excellent I’m comparing it to the likes of LDR, Koetsu Jade d/c, exotic FR7s, SPU’s and Denon 103.

Halcro, it is fortunate for you most cartridges and tonearms fall in the middle of the road now so it is much harder for you to screw up.
Resonance frequencies do not occur at sharp points. They are most pronounced at specific frequencies but ramp up and down over 1/2 an octave or so. The effects of a tonearm cartridge combination with a vertical resonance of 16 Hz will occur well into the audio range the result being sustained feed back. This would be like putting a Koetsu in an Infinity Black widow tonearm. On the other hand if you put a Shure V15 in a Kuzma 4 Point the slightest warp will start the tonearm bouncing merrily towards the spindle. 
Now I have routinely said that I try to keep the resonance frequency below 10 Hz as close to 8 as I can get it because it does make an audible and palpable improvement in low bass performance. In most systems it would not matter much because they do not have any significant output below 40 Hz. I do and I can promise you there is a significant difference even between 12 and 8 Hz (1/2 octave)
Everyone should get a test record and watch what happens when the stylus gets to the right resonance frequencies. The tonearm starts visibly shaking.   
Atmasphere, anyone who likes "In the Wake of Poseidon" is OK by me:)
Forget about manufacturer's specs. There is always a degree of variability. The best way to deal with this is play a test record and add or subtract weight until you get the resonance frequency where you want it. If you get between 8 and 12 Hz you are done. Put the record away until you change cartridges.

So your saying that a Denon DL-103, a very low compliant cart could run well with an arm like a super light weight Black Widow? I would think that Denon would wiggle that Black Widow furiously at lower frequency's and not much energy would come from the cartridge

good point, it's like SPU on Black Widow

So your saying that a Denon DL-103, a very low compliant cart could run well with an arm like a super light weight Black Widow? I would think that Denon would wiggle that Black Widow furiously at lower frequency's and not much energy would come from the cartridge.
A very common complaint with new users of the Denon DL-103 is a very light bass. Adding headshell weight and more counter balance weight transforms it's lack luster performance like magic.
That's some real world experience echoed across the web.

BillWojo

very interesting issue, you have a phantom of a cartridge
flying like a stealth, invisible for radars
report back

Nothing at all !
all my other cartridges shake somewhere - the Decca nearly jumps out the groove at around 9hz on the lateral test , the Koetsus similar.
I’ll run the test again but I didn’t notice anything first time ‘ maybe the resonance would be off the scale ? Ie above or below what the record detects ?

Hi Fi News cartridge lateral and vertical resonance tests. It didn’t actually resonate at any frequency detected on these tests (no idea if that’s good or bad !).

I think it’s impossible
Not like other cartridges from your arsenal ?
The arm normally shaking at resonance frequency with Hi Fi Test LP
maybe you need a magnifying glass to see that (look at the cantilever) ?

I have never seen any cartridge that does not resonate with Hi Fi test LP, even the lowest compliance cartridges such as SPU are shaking at certain frequency. I think i tried at least 50 cartridges.

Also i don't think that suspension can be hardened that much, as i said in another thread the suspension normally softened on old cartridges, not hardened. 

Lewm,
that’s a great point: I did read that the suspension is likely to have hardened considerably on the Shure given its age so perhaps it’s no longer a springy high compliance cartridge.
If the suspension has hardened to the extent necessary to transform the compliance from high to low would there be any obvious sonic degradation attributable to that ? I only ask as the cartridge is not showing any nasty tonal characteristics or sibilance, tracking issues etc. When I lower the cartridge down onto the record it settles nicely so there does still appear to be some suspension give.
The only thing I’ve noticed that on the one fairly badly warped record I’ve tried to play the Shure/FR 66 on it simply wouldn’t work - the stylus jumped out to the grooves.
Whether that’s a sign of a cartridge tonearm mismatch or a knackered suspension I have no idea ?
It’s sounding great on non-badly warped vinyl ....

... because my arm is a Fidelity Research FR 66s, a very high mass arm which I got because I have several Koetsus, SPU’s, FR7s Denon 103 s and a (Decca) London Reference cartridge.... 

All I can say is that while there may be some improvement possible in another tonearm (who can say there won’t be without trying) what I am hearing is quite astonishing at any price let alone £150... 

This Shure is amazing and I haven’t even started fussing over VTA etc. Given that I’m lucky enough to have a Koetsu Jade with diamond cantilever and London Reference both in Arche headshells and the fanciest silver headshell wires and the Shure is in a  basic headshell with wires from the 1920s it’s even more surprising how good the Shure is.

Welcome to the Moving Magnet world. If you like the result with that Shure cartridge i can only imagine your reaction to some of the best vintage MM/MI that many audiogon members including the OP discovered long time before i jumped in the game. My advise is to continue your search for the killer MM cartridges. I also have FR tonearms (64s and 64fx) and FR-7fz cartridge along with Ikeda 9III and Ikeda IT-345 tonearm, but some rare Moving Magnet cartridges are just superb, i can't do anything about it, they are just great! 

I don't have 66s tonearm, but in fact i enjoyed Pioneer PC-1000 mkII and many more killer MM like Stanton 980 on Lustre GST-801 and on Reed 3p "12 with high-ish mass. In my opinion an MM or MI cartridge is a must have for anyone next to your LOMC on the same turntable for easy comparison. This is where the cheaper cartridge can be better, really. The MM technology is cheaper by default, but nothing wrong with that.  

The problem with your conclusion based on your observations is that you can have no idea what the actual compliance of your Shure cartridge is at this point in time. By now, it may be a low compliance cartridge which is actually a fairly good match for the FR 66S. I have very successfully mated an Acutex cartridge with my FR 64S, and the combination works beautifully, but the Acutex is 40 years old at this point and probably no longer exhibits its original super high compliance. So all I can say is it works, but I think that is weak evidence for throwing out the customs related to tonearm matching. On the other hand, I am all for trying things out in my own system before disavowing them.

I’ve just bought an old Shure V15 111 with elliptical stylus; an impulse £150 buy off eBay based completely on an old Stereophile review. Obviously a total risk as it could have been totally knackered, but also because my arm is a Fidelity Research FR 66s, a very high mass arm which I got because I have several Koetsus, SPU’s, FR7s Denon 103 s and a (Decca) London Reference cartridge. So the chances of getting a decent sound appeared small...
It came in a Jelco headshell. It needed a good clean but looked good under eyeglass and aligned on my Brinkmann Balance very easily using Brinkmanm alignment tool.
I set VTF at 1.25 gm and first ran the Hi Fi News cartridge lateral and vertical resonance tests. It didn’t actually resonate at any frequency detected on these tests (no idea if that’s good or bad !).
I then left the world of theory and measured tests and actually played some records.
All I can say is that while there may be some improvement possible in another tonearm (who can say there won’t be without trying) what I am hearing is quite astonishing at any price let alone £150, so my penny’s worth is that what the technical specs and calculations say is not necessarily going to be an issue in real listening mode.
This Shure is amazing and I haven’t even started fussing over VTA etc. Given that I’m lucky enough to have a Koetsu Jade with diamond cantilever and London Reference both in Arche headshells and the fanciest silver headshell wires and the Shure is in a  basic headshell with wires from the 1920s it’s even more surprising how good the Shure is. I’m going to try it in the Arche and then really get OCD about VTA and see what happens.

Test moderation

Fleib, Great ! That link works.

Luckily our Luckydog is a scientist and listens vinyl. My hat off to him as well.
I have measured the effective mass of my SME III for SHURE´s topdog (excuse the clumsy expression) at 1.2 g VTF and yes, this formula gives 4.3-5.6 g depending on the weight of the counterweight ass´y (I can´t remember it precisely) but the value is as I was expecting. Increasing VTF to 1.5 g (with JICO/SAS stylus) it gives 4.2-5.5 g. Fine !

It would very interesting hear what Stephen Hawking would think of and this hobby of ours, wouldn´t it. I can´t email him ´cos I haven´t his address :/

I tought my URLs work as they generally have worked so far... Or maybe we live in paraller universes and the wormhole connecting our worlds is getting weaker...
This may very well be my last message. If so, I wish best of times and hope we will solve this mystery sooner or later.

The answer, however may be quite different for both of us because our universes have different laws of nature and thus our psychics are different, more or less ;_)

My dear mother was an opera singer. When I was a medium size child, she had a very close friend who was a refugee from Nazi Germany and an opera singer as well, Wagnerian type, maybe a mezzo soprano. The two of them would often sing operatic duets whilst my mom played the piano in our living room. Our 50s vintage home had very large "thermopane" (double glass) bay windows. Believe me, those windows audibly rattled when the two of them got into it during a crescendo. I was always frightened that the windows would shatter at any moment. They probably did not shatter only because there were two panes with an air space in between them.

Harold, I don't think VTF has anything to do with tonearm effective mass. The effective mass does not change with changing VTF. I've got to side with Halcro on the FR66S; that is one high mass tonearm for sure.

Harold NTB,
You mean the Luckydog eff mass calc? Copy the URL:
www.luckydog.demon.co.uk/images/EMC.xls
search and open the document. You should find everything from VTF to counterweight distance. Luckydog is a physicist who happens to like records.
Maybe you should send it to Stephen Hawking for a second opinion. How about a mechanical engineer?
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=vinyl&m=164890

For some reason I couldn't get either of your URLs to work. It might have something to do with the space-time continuum, or perhaps a glitch in my internet connection or that pesky virus.
Regards,

That makes me think of something: Is it only me or do others try not to cue the needle in the middle of the record? I have this feeling that dropping the needle, even ever so slowly in the middle of the record will leave some minor damage in the groove. So I tend to cue at the beginning and let it play through to the track that I want to hear. Is that a pointless exercise?

I've never thought about this before....and now you've got me thinking about this....❗️😱
STOP....⭕️🔙❌🚫

Ralph,

The FR-66 is not a "very high-mass" tone arm- although its on the high side for sure, but not 'very' high.

I think you are mistaken....👀❓
The FR-64s is listed on Vinyl Engine with an Effective Mass of 35Gm..so a figure of 40 Gm for the FR-66s is quite believable...❓😱
I've trawled through the Data Base on Vinyl Engine and can find no arm ever made that comes even close to these figures...😫❗️
Here are the highest masses of tonearms I could find on the Database:-
SME Series V...Mass=10/11
SME 3012R=14
VPI JMW Memorial 9 Signature=9.5
Zeta=16
Technics EPA250=14
Roksan Artemiz/Tabriz=9
Linn Ittok LVII=13.5
Dynavector DV501=25

Here are the Compliance figures for some of the cartridges I have used on the FR-66s:-
Shure V15 Type III Compliance...22.5
Signet TK7SU....30x 10-6cm/Dyne
Acutex LPM 312 III STR....24
Acutex LPM 420 STR...42
Empire 4000D III....30

The previous equation seems insufficient to me because I can
´t add VTF anywhere, maybe my old computer can´t download
the whole thing ? And I can´t get the whole picture of the
situation :/

This explains better:
https://www.google.fi/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4
QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reed.lt%2Fresearch%2F53-
research&ei=tc1AVJjxG4PMyAOF_oCABQ&usg=AFQjCNEf9XrvTXFC6pusi
SMCBYgueJxhvA&sig2=_x5-iRRiVyPPyn0S9kI9hA

As we find out, for approximate calculations we need only
cart´s inertia Ic.

This explains the resonant frequency more closely but it´s
basically the same as the first equation I mentioned
earlier:
https://www.google.fi/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCg
QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reed.lt%2Fabout&ei=tc1AVJjxG4PMyA
OF_oCABQ&usg=AFQjCNG6_QFNv0_fVjFLmtuMpe0A6lqUug&sig2=Ew7sZSC
PJIblULLCnN2fog

All this is simple basic mechanics. Approximate calculations
to start with.

But the mystery remains. We need to find out
The Calculation of Everything including all variables, VTF,
VTA, structures & materials inside the wand, magnetic fields
within etc.

I believe in natural sciences only. And Halcro´s
experimentations and observations as well, although they are
unorthodox.
I think we should ask Stephen Hawking.

Hi Tony,

The tonearm/stylus was cycling at 16 Hz while playing a record. It was interesting to see. Long term it would have worn out the stylus for sure.

For this to occur...a 16Hz tone had to be created either on the record, by the warp or off-centre disc...or via structure-borne feedback..❓👀
If your arm is 'moving'....you have a problem...😱
If your arm is not moving up and down or from side to side....whatever your Resonant Frequency may be....you don't have a problem and there will be no excessive wear on the stylus...😃🎶

VE database has the FR64FX at @ 20g and the 64S @ 35g

Is this is correct?

I'd guess the 12" arms are heavier.