|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.128.15.155
Would this be a good combination resonance wise?
Follow Ups:
I have two DL301s. One that has a LF resonance of ~7Hz in a 12g arm (standard 7.5g Technics headshell) and the other which is closer to 10Hz. Wildly different. The second cartridge also has appalling tracking not being able to go past 50um at 1.6g (max specified VTF).
What does this mean for you? Well, if you got a DL301 that meets specification, the 16g arm is FAR too high - which agrees with John. Even 13.5g is higher than ideal unless you employ additional fluid damping. If you ended up with an out of spec DL301 (I've no idea if the second one is a deliberate change or just a rogue out of spec unit), then you would have a poorly tracking cartridge, but would at least work well in your arm with classical material recorded at low levels!
I would suggest looking at a different cartridge personally... An AT-F7 would be a better match for a similar price or better still an OC9.
Regards Anthony
"Beauty is Truth, Truth Beauty.." Keats
The DL-301/II that I owned had compliance at resonance of about 24 x 10 -6 cm/dyne.
Consequently, I think a 16-gram tonearm might be too massive. Although, I'm presently using a cartridge with a resonance frequency in-between 6-Hz and 7-Hz, and it seems to work well in my SME V. I suspect a DL-301/II would have a similar resonance frequency in a 16-gram tonearm.
Good luck,
John Elison
Actually, I found out that the arm mass is really 13.5 gms. Is that better or worse for the resonance frequency? Thanks
Better!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: