Vinyl Asylum

Welcome Licorice Pizza (LP) lovers! Setup guides and Vinyl FAQ.

Return to Vinyl Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Tonearm Headshell Connection

71.209.146.128

Posted on July 16, 2014 at 09:24:09
AudioSoul
Audiophile

Posts: 4594
Location: north central AZ
Joined: July 9, 2005

On tonearms that have removable headshells, the rubber washer that is in between the headshell and tonearm mount. Has anyone removed this? And does it change the sound any?. Linns philosophy was to let the vibrations go through the arm and dissipate through the tonearm base. Doesn't the rubber washer defeat this?

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 16, 2014 at 10:00:34
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
The headshell is still attached by the collar and pin or pins. On the other hand, any discontinuity causes vibrations to be reflected back to the cartridge. That is one of the arguments in favor of integrating the arm and headshell into a single casting like Rega and the SME V. Anytime you have a connection -- rubber washer or not -- vibrations will be reflected instead of being conducted.

Best regards,
John Elison

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 18, 2014 at 04:54:08
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
"any discontinuity causes vibrations to be reflected back to the cartridge. "
Can you be specific about which vibrations you are referring to...and their magnitude?
"Anytime you have a connection -- rubber washer or not -- vibrations will be reflected instead of being conducted"
Can you provide some evidence for this statement.....?

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 18, 2014 at 10:46:02
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
The vibrations I am referring to are caused by the stylus following an undulating groove. The vibrating stylus transmits vibrations into the cartridge and into the tonearm. Any discontinuity will cause some of the vibrational energy to be reflected back rather than being conducted away and dissipated. The magnitude of this reflected energy is significant enough to introduce unwanted distortion into the audio signal from the cartridge. If you study the subject of "wave propagation in beams with discontinuities" you will gain a better understanding of the problem.

Good luck,
John Elison

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 18, 2014 at 11:53:12
griffithds@jaws.bz
Audiophile

Posts: 77
Location: Idaho
Joined: December 22, 2011
It would seem to be then, that all these vibration damping devices (carbon fiber head shell spacer, etc.), should be hot sellers. Why is this not the case? Why are the tone arm manufacturers not providing something with this design concept incorporated into their arm/head shell? Is it possible that all of these minuscule vibrations are so insignificant that they are utterly inconsequential.
Regards,
Don Griffith

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 18, 2014 at 12:27:27
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
> Is it possible that all of these minuscule vibrations are so insignificant that they are utterly inconsequential.

Those manufacturer's like Ortofon and SME who employ real engineers to conduct sophisticated tests and analyses claim otherwise and have the proof to support their designs. My guess is that the vast majority of tonearm manufacturers today do not have the equipment or the engineering background for the kind of measurements required to determine the significance of those so called "minuscule" vibrations. But, that's just my guess based on my impression that most tonearm designers don't even understand tonearm alignment geometry. YMMV

Best regards,
John Elison

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 18, 2014 at 18:33:54
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
"The vibrating stylus transmits vibrations into the cartridge and into the tonearm."
Seeing that the stylus vibrations are the only means of converting the mechanical energy into electrical.....any vibrations which enter the cartridge body itself and thence the headshell and tonearm (as you claim)....would be 'lost' information (not distortion)?
Can you please provide some evidence of the percentage of this 'lost' information....the frequencies at which they occur, the amount converted to heat (in cartridge body/headshell/arm)...and the scale of the residual energy which then is sufficient to create 'vibrations' in these supporting structures?
These are all easily tested and recordable scientific data which needs to be available for your statements to be made? Claiming that the data exists but is unavailable....is a nonsense.

"Discontinuities in beams" is not the subject at hand. "
"Anytime you have a connection -- rubber washer or not -- vibrations will be reflected instead of being conducted."
'Connections' are not necessarily 'discontinuities'?
Most materials can be 'connected' in various ways to allow the unrestricted passing of shear stresses, tensions, deflections, bending moments and sound waves.....the example of simple electrical soldering should have alerted you to this fact....:-)
It saddens me John that someone who offers educated advice and is respected by most readers of these Forums....lets himself (and the community) down by inventing 'facts' outside of his scope of expertise?

To the OP's question....
I have around 40-50 cartridges all mounted in various headshells and have two turntables with 3 tonearms on each.
Most of my headshells have the rubber washers removed...but the audible effects of 'with and without' are usually quite subtle.
My advice is to just try it both ways and go with that which you prefer...:-)

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 19, 2014 at 02:33:01
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
"any vibrations which enter the cartridge body itself and thence the headshell and tonearm (as you claim)....would be 'lost' information (not distortion)?"

Lost information in a reproduction is called 'distortion'.

"Connections are not necessarily 'discontinuities'?"

Connections are always 'discontinuities'.

"It saddens me John that someone who offers educated advice and is respected by most readers of these Forums....lets himself (and the community) down by inventing 'facts' outside of his scope of expertise?"

Well, I'm sorry you are saddened, but I don't believe I have invented anything that cannot be substantiated in fact regardless of my scope of expertise.

"To the OP's question.... My advice is to just try it both ways and go with that which you prefer...:-)"

That is often reasonable advice in these kind of situations and I would tend to agree with you in this case.

Good luck,
John Elison

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 19, 2014 at 04:43:02
neobop
Audiophile

Posts: 492
Joined: September 10, 2010
"The vibrations I am referring to are caused by the stylus following an undulating groove. The vibrating stylus transmits vibrations into the cartridge and into the tonearm. Any discontinuity will cause some of the vibrational energy to be reflected back rather than being conducted away and dissipated. The magnitude of this reflected energy is significant enough to introduce unwanted distortion into the audio signal from the cartridge. If you study the subject of "wave propagation in beams with discontinuities" you will gain a better understanding of the problem."

That statement seems 100% correct according to people who understand these processes better than any of us. I'm talking about mechanical engineers, physicists and cart designers. I'm trying to remember where I read that less than 30% (much less) of the mechanical energy of the cantilever is converted into electrical energy. Even though I can't prove it, does anyone really think this is an efficient process?

Pierre Lurne' has a physics degree and wrote extensively about designing an arm to dissipate unwanted mechanical energy - vibrations. These vibrations are more of an established fact than a figment of imagination.
Any boundary those vibrations encounter will affect that dissipation flow. Any damping device like a rubber washer might slow down, limit the amplitude of the vibrations, but it won't eliminate them or convert them to heat. That's why the affect is subtle. If there were no vibrations it wouldn't do much of anything except possibly effect rigidity.

neo

BIRD LIVES

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 19, 2014 at 08:09:40
zako
Audiophile

Posts: 935
Location: Mo.
Joined: March 29, 2004
I wouldn't put too much credit into anything LINN states,,

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 19, 2014 at 18:35:52
AudioSoul
Audiophile

Posts: 4594
Location: north central AZ
Joined: July 9, 2005
Oh Boy, John does not have to supply any data or measurements. This is all pretty common knowledge. If you check around the net. John is a well respected member here and knows what he is talking about, NO one needs to quiz him about this subject matter. He has helped a lot of people on this forum including myself many times.......

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 19, 2014 at 23:49:00
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
"That statement seems 100% correct according to people who understand these processes better than any of us. I'm talking about mechanical engineers, physicists and cart designers. I'm trying to remember where I read that less than 30% (much less) of the mechanical energy of the cantilever is converted into electrical energy. Even though I can't prove it, does anyone really think this is an efficient process? "
And statements like this are what discredit the 'science' of audio in the professional community....
No proof offered...no white papers....no test reports...?!
If only 30% of the mechanical energy of the stylus is converted to electrical energy.....how do you explain the fact that this 30% seems to sound like 90% of the master tape?

Nowhere in that attached Limk of the Pierre Lurne article, does he state that the vibrations in the tonearm are caused by the vibrations of the stylus transferring to the cartridge body, through the headshell and then into the arm.
The cartridge/tonearm assembly.........when in contact with the vinyl.....is a 'sprung' semi-propped cantilevered beam. As such..it has a resonant frequency which can be measured and calculated. As this 'sprung' assembly moves up and down due to the valleys and troughs of the vinyl grooves....there may be the possibility of vibrations in the tonearm itself. The scale and effects of these possible vibrations have never been quantified nor studied in any scientifically accepted journal to my knowledge?
Only when the resonant frequency of the sprung assembly is excited by a record warp or low-frequency information on the record....is the tonearm vibration understood and quantified.
When it is not lowered on the record.....what is the resonant frequency of the tonearm.....?

And apart from mechanical engineers, physicists and cartridge designers.....why do not think that structural engineers, materials scientists and acoustic engineers are needed to understand the principles involved?

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 20, 2014 at 02:17:31
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
"Oh Boy, John does not have to supply any data or measurements."

Then ditch your removable headshells forthwith and communicate directly with John for all your future queries....

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 20, 2014 at 02:29:54
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
"Nowhere in that attached Link of the Pierre Lurne article, does he state that the vibrations in the tonearm are caused by the vibrations of the stylus transferring to the cartridge body, through the headshell and then into the arm."

I can't figure out what your agenda is. You claim to be an architect so I'm wondering why you need Pierre Lurne to state that vibrating a stylus attached to a cartridge attached to a tonearm will also transmit vibrations into the tonearm. I would expect an architect to readily understand vibration propagation in structures. Of course, you don't seem to have a clue as to what constitutes distortion in a reproduced audio signal nor do you seem to understand much about structural discontinuities. Therefore, I guess I'm wondering what your agenda is here.

Thanks,
John Elison

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 20, 2014 at 03:36:00
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
Sadly it is you who seems not to comprehend the differences between 'distortion' and 'lost information' which is puzzling...?
Less puzzling is the fact that you have no education nor understanding of structural engineering, materials science or acoustic science...yet I know that for most mechanical engineers....some form of acoustics education is compulsory...?

My agenda is to try and combat the proliferation of unsubstantiated drivel proffered by some audiophiles as 'facts'....?

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 20, 2014 at 03:44:41
neobop
Audiophile

Posts: 492
Joined: September 10, 2010
Well, lets look at a quote from the link above:
"The different parts of a turntable or tonearm should always be simple and as compact as possible. By doing so, you avoid vibration problems. When you have too many pieces, there's too much decoupling. And if you have too much decoupling, at the end of the story, you cannot understand what is happening on the disc. Loosen every screw on a turntable, for example, and the resultant decoupling means that the vibrations can't follow a path.

"It's the same in tonearm design. An important point of the design is that you must have a path for the vibrations in the arm. I used a unipivot bearing in the Model 1 for that reason. You need to choose a single path for the vibrations to leave the system, in effect to be grounded to earth. If you have two points, it is possible for the vibrations to return by the other one. With just one point, you have a mechanical diode; you say to the vibrations ~'go that way.' And you can then start to control what is happening in your system.

The unipivot bearing may provide this mechanical diode effect, providing a lower-impedance path for vibrations travelling away from the tonearm tube than for those travelling toward it, but the fact that the motional center of gravity of the system is above the bearing tends to make it unstable, just as it tends to be very hard to balance a stiletto on its point."

No, he didn't specifically refer to cartridge vibrations, but that's what he was talking about along with mechanical vibrations from the plinth.
On the Audiomecca site he specifically referred to vibrations from the cartridge exiting the arm. The last time I looked that site was no longer Lurne's.

"If only 30% of the mechanical energy of the stylus is converted to electrical energy.....how do you explain the fact that this 30% seems to sound like 90% of the master tape? "

Why do you assume there's a 1 to 1 relationship between efficiency and detail of information? Maybe the 70% lost is amplitude or strength of vibrations and almost all of the detail is resolved.
There are also parts within the cartridge that move and vibrate. MCs are said to put more energy into the arm because the coils move, but all carts have moving parts.
It's the vibrations of the cantilever that excite the generator in all magnetic carts. There is no other source of energy outside of the magnets. I'm not sure exactly what your contention is, but do you really think this is an efficient generator and 90% of the mechanical energy is converted to electricity?

For the sake of argument, lets assume the generator is 90% efficient. What happens to the other 10% of vibrations, and the vibrations from moving parts within the cartridge?

You ask for proof, white papers etc. You're the one going against accepted wisdom, the onus of proof is on you Halcro. You talk about the resonant frequency of the arm/cart, but I'm talking about the vibrations of the cantilever, the actual movement that produces electrical output from the transducer.

Regards,








BIRD LIVES

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 20, 2014 at 07:14:57
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
"No, he didn't specifically refer to cartridge vibrations, but that's what he was talking about....."

I don't agree that he was talking at all about cartridge vibrations......

As I previously explained....a 'sprung' semi-propped cantilevered tonearm will 'bounce' up and down depending on the groove it is tracking, the flatness of the record and any warps encountered.
This up and down motion attached to the 'spring' of the cantilever could possibly induce certain vibrations in the tonearm depending on its stiffness, material and any inherent damping...and more particularly.....the compliance of the cartridge cantilever.
The quantum of these vibrations (apart from the particular resonant frequency of the arm/cartridge assembly)....has never been scientifically quantified because they will be different for every arm and cartridge.....but I suspect some arm designers may overestimate their prevalence and/or magnitude? :-)

At any rate.....Pierre Lurne is but one tonearm designer....
There are dozens more who have quite different philosophies and solutions to the same problem...
but there is little conclusive science which can be shown to make one arm better than hundreds of others?

"You're the one going against accepted wisdom."........:-(
I don't believe that it's "wisdom".....and do you mean "accepted wisdom" as in.....The World is Flat?! :-)

It matters little to me what you and John believe in your philosophies of tonearms, cartridges, vibrations etc....
I value both of your 'subjective' and empirical observations and ideas...and I have learnt from them :-)
It's when statements and/or ideas are proffered to the 'world-at-large' as 'facts'....which seem to me illogical and/or outrageous......and have no basis of proof or scientific validity that it begins to 'matter' to me.....

Regards

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 20, 2014 at 09:49:33
neobop
Audiophile

Posts: 492
Joined: September 10, 2010
You're only looking at the arm/cart as a sprung system with resonances and possible vibration etc.

What about the movements of the cantilever that excite the generator?
If the generator is less than 100% efficient, what happens to the rest of the vibrations and what about the moving parts within the cart?

The gestalt really is that carts transmit vibrations to the arm irrespective of arm/cart resonance, and it's not just John and I that subscribe to that. If you check with arm designers, cart designers, MEs, I think you'll find this opinion is prevalent.

Believe me Lurne' wrote about this, describing his arms and specifically mentioned cart vibrations. I'll see if I can find other sources, but I don't have time to do an extensive search. If you can find any information to the contrary, or to support your position, whatever that is, please enlighten us.
Regards,

BIRD LIVES

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 20, 2014 at 10:08:36
neobop
Audiophile

Posts: 492
Joined: September 10, 2010
Here's one -

The cause of unwanted vibration:
BIRD LIVES

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 20, 2014 at 10:39:23
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
> My agenda is to try and combat the proliferation of unsubstantiated drivel proffered by some audiophiles as 'facts'....?

How's that working out for you? Are you having any success?




 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection -- tangent, posted on July 20, 2014 at 14:37:37
goldenthal
Audiophile

Posts: 999
Location: Ontario
Joined: March 28, 2003
So, John (and please forgive my obsessiveness), now that you have seen pictures of it, are you able to spot whether the Kuzma 4-point achieves anything close to engineering Nirvana in this as well as other respects? Is there more one would want to know?

I could always do the maths; never the diagrams.


Thanks,

Jeremy

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection -- tangent, posted on July 20, 2014 at 15:24:46
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
I thought the Kuzma 4-point bearing system was innovative and ingenious. I don't really know any more about the Kuzma tonearm other than from looking at the pictures and the fact it uses Löfgren's "A" alignment geometry of which I heartily approve. I have heard it at audio shows and it sounded good to me.

Do you own one? How do you like it?

Best regards,
John Elison

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection -- tangent -- PS, posted on July 20, 2014 at 16:11:54
goldenthal
Audiophile

Posts: 999
Location: Ontario
Joined: March 28, 2003
John:

Probably few other than wealthy ocd-ers and reviewers get to compare tonearms for sound quality. Purely by happenstance, around 40 years ago, I was able so to compare (same table, cartridges [Denon 103d and FR1 Mk3f], same relevant tracking forces, &c.). The arms were an SME3 and an FR64s, the former with SME headshell weights installed to render as-close-as-possible the same salient mass; settings varied only to accommodate the 2 different cartridge specs.

Sonically, there was a very noticeable difference, the SME "cleaning the Fr's clock" in every (to me) important respect, and particularly in re "air, openness". That result was contrary to then-current rumour and price.

The two arms' designs were clearly very different, so after that I paid more attention to design (so far as I was knowledge-wise able). I wanted to be able to infer enough to discard consideration of designs that obviously would not perform to "my standards". Among designs that looked promising to me was the Well Tempered, but I've never heard it. Today, it seems to be "out-of-fashion", for reasons unknown to me. The only other "different" design (by which I mean that , e.g., there were many unipivot designs around at that time, so I heard many) of which I am newly aware is that of the Kuzma 4-point, but its strong recommendation comes from a source whose assessments are entirely uncorroborated by any "objective-correlative" -- John Atkinson does not want to be bothered by analogue measurements, and apparently nobody else is capable; thus, I am unable to infer even what kind of sound Fremer prefers.

Thence my obsessive queries.


Thanks for your patience (if any left).


Jeremy

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection -- tangent, posted on July 20, 2014 at 16:19:16
goldenthal
Audiophile

Posts: 999
Location: Ontario
Joined: March 28, 2003
Thanks. John.

No, I do not own one yet. But unless you can tell me why not, it may be my next.


Again, thanks!


Jeremy

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection -- tangent, posted on July 20, 2014 at 18:40:04
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
I can't imagine you'll be disappointed. It looks like an excellent tonearm to me. Of course, the price is way more than I would be willing to pay. Hopefully, you've found a good deal. I doubt I could afford my SME V at its price today and the Kuzma is at least a thousand dollars more.

If I were planning to spend that kind of money, I think I would go for the 12-inch version of the SME V. Of course, the SME V has always been my favorite tonearm since it was introduced. However, when you get into this category of tonearm, I don't think terms like "better" and "worse" really apply. There might be differences, but I don't think you can specify with certainty whether one arm is objectively better or worse than the other. Of course, the Kuzma 4-Point should definitely have slightly lower bearing friction than the SME V and it is nearly as long as the SME V-12.

I was looking at the Kuzma website and I discovered what I believe to be an error in pivot-to-spindle distance for the Kuzma 4-Point. It is specified to be 264-mm at several places in their website, but it should be 265.37-mm for Löfgren's "A" alignment with null-point radii at 66-mm and 120.9-mm. Therefore, if you buy the tonearm, make sure you mount it for a pivot-to-spindle distance of 265.37-mm. This might be a little tricky because the arm base center is not coincident with the horizontal bearing center. Kuzma states the arm base should be mounted at 212-mm from the spindle. The problem that I see is whether mounting the arm base at 212-mm actually provides a pivot-to-spindle distance of 265.37-mm or whether you will need to mount the arm base at 213.37-mm to get the correct pivot-to-spindle distance. You definitely do not want to end up with a 264-mm pivot-to-spindle distance because the resulting alignment is absurd with gobs of inner groove distortion. Below are graphs of the two alignments. I have a feeling the 264-mm pivot-to-spindle distance is a typo because all other parameters seem to jive with Löfgren's "A" alignment.

Good luck,
John Elison




 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 20, 2014 at 18:55:43
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
By now....you and John must have exhausted your Google searches in trying to find any evidence of stylus mechanical energy 'leaking' through the cartridge body into the headshell and thence the tonearm......and all your trawling has done....is uncover information which validates my explanation about how and why the tonearm might vibrate due to the tracking of the grooves.

It is so easy to test your theories that I'm surprised that John himself doesn't possess the instruments?....it sure ain't Rocket Science (to use an original expression).
You can find the plotted test for all the cartridge's electrical properties including frequency response, channel balance, IM distortion, compliance etc.....
Don't you think that measuring the supposed 'energy' you claim is exiting the cartridge via the top, sides or anywhere else can easily be done if in fact it exists?
This could even be used as a marketing tool by the manufacturers...'.OUR cartridge has less losses than others'...? It could also be used to determine the best material for cartridge bodies...or whether 'nude' is better?

The fact that there are no figures for what you claim is occurring....is because it is simply NOT occurring....and all your well-intentioned 'imaginings' will not make it so.

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 20, 2014 at 18:59:52
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
"How's that working out for you? Are you having any success?"

Not judging by this conversation.......

Thanks for the Arm Resonance Graph.
Goes to show how easily it is done these days...?
Where's the one for the cartridge body....?

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 21, 2014 at 05:21:44
neobop
Audiophile

Posts: 492
Joined: September 10, 2010
I told you I wasn't going to waste much time with this.
The thread is about tonearm resonances and vibration, and you've been presented clear evidence of such. Here's one example from a cart manufacturer:

"First, different-shaped structures on the left and right sides of the cartridge body suppress the formation of standing waves within, resulting in a significant reduction of resonance-induced colorations. Second, the asymmetric construction offsets the front magnet carrier and its associated mounting system so that it is no longer in line with the cantilever assembly. This opens up a direct, solid path between the cantilever assembly and tonearm headshell so that vibrations from the cantilever can be quickly drained away once they have been converted into electrical signals, again suppressing induced resonances."

Regards,
BIRD LIVES

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 21, 2014 at 05:55:50
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
Sorry....did I miss the test results and peer-reviewed white papers....?
Or should I send you some marketing blurb 'proving' that Wilson's X material eliminates all speaker cabinet resonances.....?

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 21, 2014 at 12:25:35
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
Your logic eludes me, especially coming from an architect who supposedly has a technical education, which must have included some level of materials science and vibration analysis not to mention structural design. In other words, since neobop and I cannot show you actual test reports of tonearm vibration testing, you insist this proves that tonearms don't vibrate and there is no energy transfer from the vibrating stylus into the cartridge body and then into the tonearm thereby rendering the structural design of headshell and tonearm unimportant in the performance of record playing. Furthermore, you are suggesting that even if there were energy transfer from stylus to tonearm any structural discontinuities such as the connection of cartridge to headshell and headshell to tonearm will have no effect whatsoever on the ultimate performance of the reproduction process. Is that pretty much what you are saying?

In other words, if something has never been tested it cannot possibly exist or better yet, if neobop and I cannot find actual test reports to show you, it definitely does not exist. That is excellent logic coming from an architect.

Based on this logic, I'm wondering why you would buy a very expensive tonearm from Continuum that did not include a detachable headshell. Furthermore, I'm wondering why any manufacturer would design a tonearm without a standard bayonet style detachable headshell. There must be a rationale for this sort of inconvenient design and I'm wondering what your opinion is on the reason for tonearms with non-detachable headshells. Why do you think any company like Rega, SME, or Continuum would design a tonearm without a detachable headshell? You don't need to provide test reports, although it seems Continuum has conducted some sort of vibration testing based on the graph that I found. I know that SME has done extensive vibration testing on their tonearms but I don't have access to their test reports as they no longer seem to be available on their website.

Anyway, what is your opinion as to why any company would decide to manufacture a tonearm without a detachable headshell and why would you ever consider buying such a tonearm?

Thanks,
John Elison

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 21, 2014 at 16:06:03
flood2
Audiophile

Posts: 2552
Joined: January 11, 2011
I don't know if you got the answer you were looking for yet - the thread has deviated a little...

The degree of vibration transmission from the cantilever will also depend on the degree of coupling between the cartridge and headshell. An extreme example would be the "Concorde" Integrated design as practised by Ortofon and (previously) STanton with their DJ line.

When you remove the rubber gasket, I presume you compensate for the removal by resetting the cartridge position? It would be impossible to achieve "exactly" the same alignment except by chance unless you have a special jig, therefore any difference you might hear would most likely be due to variations in alignment.

Using a combination of precision machined and 3D printed parts, I designed a special jig to align my cartridges with respect to the plug so I achieve a very high degree of consistency. I use paper shims of different thicknesses in an appropriate combination to ensure exact/consistent overhang so I never have "metal on metal" connections. The rubber gaskets supplied with different brands of headshell are slightly different in thickness, but the Technics ones are typically ~0.5mm, so if you remove the rubber only you are making quite a dramatic change to alignment which will favour the outer edge grooves and require antiskate to be reduced. If you don't make those adjustments, then you will hear a difference but unlikely to be due to vibration transmission.

What is your preferred cartridge? Low compliance cartridges are much more likely to excite vibration modes in the arm.
I tend to use high compliance cartridges in my SL1200.



Regards Anthony

"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 21, 2014 at 22:33:19
Halcroman
Audiophile

Posts: 312
Location: Sydney
Joined: February 12, 2007
I suspect that the driving force behind the demise of the detachable headshell (although it appears to be making somewhat of a comeback with some modern arm designs like DaVinci and Axiom) was the rise in popularity of the LOMC cartridges in the ‘80s….and the belief that the fewer electrical connections in the way of these sometimes ridiculously low output signals…the better?
There is no arguing against this logic and for that reason I like to call these kind of principles….’Audio Motherhood Statements’…☺
When the headshell thus became ‘fixed’….it could be designed as REALLY fixed (ie integral) although structurally speaking…there is more than enough rigidity in the famed sleeved bayonet collar connection.

Now I have seen so-called ‘fixed’ headshells in some modern tonearms which structurally make me shudder…..metal blocks fixed to wood arm-tubes with a single screw or bolt?
I have also seen modern tonearms like the Graham unipivots…which have a detachable wand fixed with the same ubiquitous sleeved locking collar of their headshell predecessors…..?
I owned a Phantom II at one stage….:-(

Following closely this same ‘Audio Motherhood Statement’…..demands that the tonearm wiring is unbroken from cartridge clips to phonostage inputs…

Now I notice John…that you break this ‘Statement’ with your SME tonearm and SUT and separate phonostage and preamp all requiring multiple electrical connections compared to a single cable run into an on-board phonostage into an integrated amplifier…say?
If you had a ‘theoretical’ argument about this principle….you could not win!

But you and I both know that theory and practice in high-end audio…dance a finely balanced waltz..?
You have obviously found that the benefits of the SME arm…and a passive SUT outweigh the ‘theoretical’ advantages they eschew?
I likewise have found that adding a passive SUT like my Kondo KSL SF-Z sounds better for my LOMC cartridges than using the on-board MC active phonostage of the Halcro DM10 preamp….despite the added connection involved?
I have also had the Copperhead wired with unbroken cable from cartridge pins to both RCAs and XLRs and currently have a ‘broken’ connection with a DIN plug into Cardas RCA terminated Golden Reference phono cables. And I can’t hear the differences between the ‘unbroken’ and the ‘broken’?

In the same way…I have found that tonearms equipped with detachable headshells do not suffer against those with fixed headshells (or even NO headshell like in the Continuums).
In fact…..out of the dozen or so tonearms I have owned (including the DaVinci 12” Ref Grandezza and the Phantom II)….and the dozens of modern arms I have heard in various systems…….none other than the Continuums…..sound as well as my two Fidelity Research FR-66s or SAEC WE8000/ST.
In fact, if I had to choose between my Copperhead and the FR-66s…..the Copperhead would go…☹

And then there’s the benefits that no fixed headshell tonearm can deliver…..the fast interchange of multiple cartridges already geometrically optimised…..the ability to choose the headshell weight and material to suit different cartridges…the ability to quickly switch each cartridge from arm to arm and back to quickly hear differences on different recordings….

So from my perspective John…..I can never see myself again buying a tonearm WITHOUT a detachable headshell.
But I can certainly understand those who feel the other way…☺

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 22, 2014 at 11:07:51
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
"Now I notice John?that you break this ‘Statement' with your SME tonearm and SUT and separate phonostage and preamp all requiring multiple electrical connections compared to a single cable run into an on-board phonostage into an integrated amplifier?say?
If you had a ‘theoretical' argument about this principle?.you could not win!"


I don't quite understand what you mean by winning a "theoretical argument about this principle." Personally, I don't believe that electrical connections in the low-level line from cartridge to phono stage are any more critical than electrical connections anywhere else. I base this fact on my knowledge of how electricity behaves. I was an electronic technician before I became a mechanical engineer. Furthermore, I believe a single run of thin gauge, high resistance wire from cartridge to phono stage is less desirable than having several connections to allow heavier gauge wire to be used for cartridge connecting wire and phono interconnects thereby reducing overall resistance. If you have some scientific argument or test reports that claims electrical connections in low-level signals are more critical than electrical connections in line-level signals, I'd be very interested.

It is obvious that you were not too involved in the rationale behind the move from detachable headshells to non-detachable headshells because everything I read in the audio mags stated the reason as one of structural integrity rather than electrical integrity. I don't know when the electrical connection obsession reared its head, but I don't think it has much merit. Do you know of any test reports or scientific rationale explaining why an electrical connection would be more critical in the wire connecting the cartridge to the phono stage compared to any other wire in the audio chain? Please, bring forth the proof if any exists.

Thanks,
John Elison

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 22, 2014 at 12:08:44
neobop
Audiophile

Posts: 492
Joined: September 10, 2010
It was always about mechanical integrity, at least as far as the manufacturers were concerned.
SME V came out in the '80s and a bunch of high end arms came out with Linn geometry as Ittock replacements or stand alone, all with fixed headshells. Arms like Alphason HR100, and Zeta and even Sumiko The Arm all had fixed headshells.

The Goldmund Reference and Studio had their own linear tracker, but the Studietto had the option of an armboard for either SME or Linn cutout.

neo
BIRD LIVES

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 23, 2014 at 07:16:58
Posts: 7738
Location: Powell, Wyoming
Joined: July 23, 2007
Aside from all the marketing hype and alleged advantages of a fixed/integrated headshell tonearm, I'm convinced the biggest reason for it is lower cost. From a manufacturing perspective, it's going to faster, easier and cheaper to use straight tonearm tubes and a fixed headshell design. Particularly when turntable sales decline to the point that it's a low volume niche market, making the cost of tooling to produce parts for more complex designs prohibitively expensive.

When I designed and built a unipivot tonearm, it was a straight arm with integrated headshell. Granted, it was a one of a kind DIY project, but the same principle applies, low volume production forces a simple, cheap, and easy to make design.

My experience is similar to yours Halcroman. I cannot discern any advantage a fixed headshell has over a standard removable design. In fact, I see far more advantages offered by removable style, as you've detailed in your above comments.

 

RE: Tonearm Headshell Connection, posted on July 23, 2014 at 18:36:10
John Elison
Audiophile

Posts: 23874
Location: Central Kentucky
Joined: December 20, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
January 29, 2004
> Aside from all the marketing hype and alleged advantages of a fixed/integrated headshell tonearm,
> I'm convinced the biggest reason for it is lower cost.

I have no doubt that cost reduction is the primary reason for eliminating electrical connections by running continuous wire from cartridge to phono stage. However, the main reason SME developed an expensive single-piece cast magnesium tonearm without structural discontinuities was to improve structural integrity and provide better vibration control.

Best regards,
John Elison

 

Page processed in 0.037 seconds.