 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
195.93.60.8
In Reply to: Re: sometimes, --more-- effective mass does the trick..... posted by Headshell on December 18, 2004 at 08:54:38:
That itself adds mass to the headshell. The various combinations of compliance and cartridge weight ranges all over the place. There is no magical one such combination so virtually any cartidge one would use vs. any other will be effectively changing headshell wieght, ie.e mass.
Follow Ups:
When something is wrong,addition of mass can only be the right cure in my opinion when this mass really appears to have solved the core- problem. Lowering of resonance frequency cannot be seen as a cure in itself.But let's find the real substantial backgrounds of this sonic improvements. I still do not see them...
Jan.
"When something is wrong,addition of mass can only be the right cure in my opinion when this mass really appears to have solved the core- problem. Lowering of resonance frequency cannot be seen as a cure in itself."What the hell does that mean?!
If a certain cartridge/arm combination results in a much too high resonance frequency and another combination is Ok by any test you choose than the only practical solution to the "core problem" of the first combination is to increase the arm mass being that it is pretty impossible for one to increase the compliance or mass of the cartridge.
So where's the problem?
"If a certain cartridge/arm combination results in a much too high resonance frequency" Why can it be too high? To my knowledge the higher resonances give more stable tracking and less BIM. Do you mean a lower resistance against flexing? Then you should locate the core problem in the arm, not in the resonance frequency.
"and another combination is Ok by any test you choose" Perhaps that other combination has other properties than the lower resonance frequency, which overrules the result of it.
"than the only practical solution to the "core problem" of the first combination is to increase the arm mass being that it is pretty impossible for one to increase the compliance or mass of the cartridge." I do not see why a high resonance frequency on it's own can be the cause of bad sonic results.
There must be another problem in the first combination , of which the sound does not convince you. Until now I never have read a substantial theoretic base for the assumtion that a somewhat higher resonance frequency can cause worse musical results. Or it must be that the less favourite artefacts in the sonic panorama have a fatal attraction to you. Overhere we call that the "Radio Modern- Bass" You should visit their shops to experience what I mean.
Or do you have the same conviction: only your feeling for "good or bad" compliances and "good or bad" effective masses is the only and sufficient regular guideline for the assumption that the lower compliances sound better? That will never convince me.
Can't we find really concrete theoretical backgrounds for it? There must be some of them. Let's seek for it!
Jan.
"than the only practical solution to the "core problem" of the first combination is to increase the arm mass being that it is pretty impossible for one to increase the compliance or mass of the cartridge." I do not see why a high resonance frequency on it's own can be the cause of bad sonic results.Well Jan, then you are the only one.
We're not talking her about the difference between 8-12Hz and say 14Hz. I would be the last to say it has to be bwtween 8 and 12.
And for your information there is no relationship between the resonance frequency and the actual frequency contained n a groove modulation. There is probably very little if anything under 40Hz on most records and certainly not under 25Hz.
I still miss concrete backgrounds for your advice to lower resonance frequency. Your "popular" point of view never received any theoretic basis when they launched it in the press nor anywhere else. Convince me like the 1977 AES paper will do..... There simply are no grounds for it..."between the resonance frequency and the actual frequency contained and groove modulation" Where did I say that?
Need not to give it up. I'm not on my own either. Certainly not. I have strong considerations founded on research results. Like I explained so may times. Your theory has missed that until now. Let's seek for it please! Help me out. I like to believe it, but it simply misses the founding facts. It' not done these days to lounch a theory without a strong basis.
Jan
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
