Adding mass to a tonearm


I would like someone to explain to me why adding headshell weights doesn't really alter the mass of the tonearm that much when figuring cart vs tonearm compliance. I have a Denon DL-103r and I keep reading that's it's for high mass tonearms. I also hear that adding headshell weights doesn't really alter the mass. What gives?

I want to try a DIY on my Pioneer PL-530 turntable tonearm where I mask off the arm such that only the chrome arm on the headshell side is visible and spray it with Plastidip. This would seem to add mass and resonance control. If it doesn't work the I can just peel it off.  
last_lemming
Dear @last_lemming : Ok. What you can do is to buy a higher weigth headshell and see what happen.

Now, when we change the headshell from with the cartridge is mounted for other diferent headshell it does not matters its weigth ( well it matters but... ) the changes in the " new " quality level performance comes not only from the weigth but from the new headshell build material, new headshell build shape and the new headshell wiresa/connectors. So, its not easy to say if the changes for the better or bad quality comes from the diferent weigth.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
First, I don't believe that "S" arms are necessarily lower mass.  That will be a function of the material the arm was formed from, how thick the walls, the length, and so on.  If fact for a given length, a straight arm with offset headshell will likely be lighter than an S arm with the same effective length when other factors are equal.

However, to experiment, you could take a small ball of Blu-tak or plumber's putty weighing a gram or two (use your VTF scale) and affix that to the headshell, rebalance the arm, and see if this offers any sonic/tracking improvement.  If so, keep adding weight until it becomes worse, then reduce it to the optimal.  If no improvement was observed, then forget about it.

Note if that does give an improvement you should be able to determine how much mass could be added for a more permanent solution.

Dear @pryso : """  Note if that does give an improvement you should be able to determine how much mass could be added for a more permanent solution."""

As I posted the " game " of "" adding mass " rigth at the headshell is not the best way to do it because when adding anything at the headshell you are changing the resonances colorations/distortions because the material used to increment the mass can works as a " damping " tool or the other way around depending on the kind of material used on it.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Raul, and last_lemming, maybe I didn't make myself clear.  My suggestion to experiment with bits of clay to add mass was not meant as a permanent condition.  It was merely an easier way to find out if, and how much, added mass would improve the performance of the cartridge.  It went without saying if say a 2 or 3 gram increase was beneficial, then find a headshell that much heavier.

Otherwise, experimenting with a number of different headshells could get expensive and would be very time consuming, given consideration to mounting and alignment for each trial.  That was why I included the thought of "a more permanent solution".

I tend to agree with Pryso.  Look at the Technics EPA250 tonearm: The optional arm wands with lowest effective mass are all straight pipes with a tiny fixed headshell.  The arm wand with high-ish effective mass is an S-shaped pipe with provision for optional headshells.  This suggests that Technics realized the effect of pipe shape on eff mass. However, I also agree with Raul.  Adding mass to the headshell is not "the best" way to increase effective mass.  Changing the headshell for a heavier one would be the simplest alternative way to go but as Raul also said, this will also change the "sound" by a bit.  Another route is to add some mass evenly across the length of the arm wand, by wrapping it with tape or heat-shrink or whatever.  But ALL of these methods will possibly change the sound.