Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: This just in. Pic. posted by JonM on April 22, 2021 at 10:45:36
Because the mass of the arm is so low, I think that I need to have a cartridge with the most mass and the highest compliance. Goes against received logic, I know. So with the Ortofon, I would keep the auxiliary weight in. Great suggestion.
I have mine in an SME III (also low mass). The SME uses multiple lead weights in its counterbalance, which you can add or remove to get the lowest effective mass and still balance the arm. The Ortofon was so light (even with the brass weight left in), I had to remove most of the lead weights (all but the last, large one).
But your point is a good one - the objective isn't minimum mass, it is to get the optimum resonant frequency of the arm/cartridge combination. That's typically around 10 Hz. Ortofon says to remove the weight in low mass arms, but I agree with you, I don't think that is necessarily the best advice.
The SME has fluid damping (amazingly, still fluid after 40 years), so it isn't critical for me. But in your arm, you'd need to see whether that brass weight actually helps get the resonance close to the goal of 10 Hz.
......with the fluid damping and the Titanium Nitride arm tube. Funny enough, it too was on a Kenwood KD 500.
I also mounted an SME iiis on a Thorens TD150. That is the one without the fluid damping, kind of the stripper model. I think the iii had an effective mass of 5 grams, if memory serves. I really liked that arm, congrats.
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: