Detachable Head shell or Not?


I am in the process to up my game with some phono system tweaking.

I read in these forums of many people here with multiple arms, multiple cartridges and even multiple turntables.  I am guilty of this myself but moderately compared to so many phono hardware diehards here.

All the continued comments on Talea vs. Schroeder vs. Kuzma, Da Vinci, Tri-Planar, etc., etc, on these forums.  And the flavor of the day cartridge.  One easy way to manage the use of many cartridges, easily swapping between them, and getting down to one turntable would be to run with a tonearm that supports removable head shells or arm tubes.  And yet this does not seem to be widely done here.  Is everybody just too proud of all the pretty phono hardware to admire?

Many highly respected arms of the past, FR 64/66, Ikeda, and now Glanz, Kuzma 4-Point, the new Tru-Glider, all with removable heads.  And the Graham and Da Vinci with removable arm tubes.  These products have a huge fan base and yet there seems to be an equal number of those against any extra mechanical couplings and cable junction boxes, din connections, etc.

I can appreciate having two cartridges, one to bring out that addictive lush bloomy performance and another that shows off that clarity and detail “to die for”.  Being able to easily swap between the two, with hopefully only a quick VTF/VTA change, would be mighty nice.  If too painful a process, I can understand the need for two arms here;  like the idea of going through many LPs in an evening and not being obsessed with tweaking the arm for each.  I hope I never get obsessed to do get to that point.  But for different days/nights, to listen to different kinds of music, it could be mighty nice to swap out one cartridge for another in different head shells without the added cluster and cost of oh please, not another tonearm!.  Do a minute or two of tweaking, ONCE, for that listening session, and then enjoy.  There is always the added risk during the uninstall / install process to damage that prized cartridge.

Is running with a tonearm that has a detachable head shell all that sinful / shameful in the audiophile world ……. or not?  I’d like to hear from those who have achieved musical bliss with removable head shell arms and also from those that if asked to try such a product would likely say, “over my dead body”!

John

jafox

With detachable shells, I think it is never as good, but convenience may trump the degradation in sound. Similarly I cant think of a single situation is which directly going from the cartridge to the preamp with wire wont be superior. 

I used to not like them, but now that I own a Technics MK7 I have come to appreciate the ease at which I can not only mount a cartridge, but also swap another in on a spare headshell. I doubt there is much noticeable difference in sound quality. Another cool thing is you can use headshells other than the Technics.

The idea of the continuous wire from Cart' Pins the Phono RCA will be very appealing to those who want minimised interruption in the Signal Path.

The method is best used only if the mechanical properties of the Tonearm are not impacted on by the methods to use the wire,

The goal is to have as close to a Zero influence as possible on the mechanical interfaces within the arm, and there are not many who deal with this area, that are with the understanding and skills to create the methods where a influence of the design change for the wiring is nearing Zero influence.    

Raul - I tend to not be fond of the word, best.  The use of superlatives often gets us in trouble.  Even when we refer to one product over another as better, this too is often not easily quantifiable.  When I compare products, I think of preference, and at that moment.

I talked again with the tonearm dealer today.  Two weeks ago he gave me the rundown on the sonic and setup differences of the tonearm he had for sale vs. two others that I asked him about.  He had been a dealer for one of those.  It all came down to preferences, the word best never came up.

The dealer told me the tonearm mount ring on my TT's tonearm tower is chrome-plated aluminum.  As the bottom of the tonearm is metal, he suggested an alternate to machining the existing mounting ring.  He felt that metal on metal was not a good coupling.  Initially he considered inserting a 3mm wood shim here as provided by the tonearm designer. But today he suggested to machine a new mount altogether.  He talked of different wood materials and other boards made of multiple materials sandwiched through a high temperature process.  I shared the evolution of my system, my sonic preferences years ago and now.  This lead him to suggest a couple of boards to match with my preferences.  Again, we never talked about best.

With all the discussion here on tonearms, removable head shells, cable from cartridge to phone stage, etc., the discussion today with the dealer made me aware of the relevance of mounting board materials. 

After I live with he arm and cartridge change for a week or so, I will tweak the arm's parameters per the dealer's suggestions, listen more and repeat another time or two and then leave it alone.  Once I become familiar with the changes, I will cycle a few IC's and PC's in a couple places.  And who knows, I might prefer another of my cables in a link that was not preferred there before.  😊 

It is difficult to see where the benefits are for the mechanical interfaces on the Tonearm using the methods suggested by the Tonearm Dealer you are in communication with.

I fully agree that a change of, or addition of materials, in an assembly, at an interface where parts are fastened to each other within the assembly of the devices on the TT, will introduce a change to the Sonic Signature offered.             The discovery to be made is if the change is a desirable outcome for the end user, changing Plinth Mounting Methods, Headshells and Platter Mats can also offer perceptions of changes being created in the Sonic Signature offered by the assembly.

Whenever there is a junction between two different materials it creates a reflection boundary which in this case would be trial and error to learn of the impact of the reflected energy at the interface.

It is a improved engineering / design consideration, to sink the energy through the arm and into the bearings and propagate to the plinth with the most efficient management of the energy transfer through to the plinth, where the energy will dissipate.