Removable headshells 101

I'm surprised at Raul's response.
Whilst I can appreciate that what he has experienced may indeed be true.......to then throw up his arms and state that he has no understanding of the reasons for the performance changes of various headshells is contradictory to what he is always stating about the need for us to 'understand' the reasons behind good tonearms and poor tonearms, good turntables and poor turntables?
Raul carefully lists all the factors that play a part in tonearm design and turntable design yet here, with the (relatively) simple parameters of the 'headshell'.......it's all too difficult?
Try it and see?.....maybe it's 'magic'?

Well I don't believe it's 'magic'.
I think there are certain basic physical and structural principles that govern a removable headshell design and the 'magic' may be related to cartridge/tonearm synergy?
That 'magic' is complex enough......let's not create myths and illusions at every twist and turn of the analogue chain.
To the uninitiated, it would appear that analogue is just too complex to bother with?......and that is just not the case.

Firstly I'd like to destroy the myth that removable headshells are in some ways inferior to 'fixed' headshells?
In 'theory', this must be correct as any possible movement or weakness in the rigidity chain between cartridge and arm-board is potential for information loss.
But we all know that in audio, the chasm between 'theory' and 'practice' can sometimes be vast?
The best sounds I have ever heard reproduced in my system have been with tonearms which have removable DIN phono connections and removable headshells.
I have 3 other arms with fixed headshells (or in the case of the Copperhead....no headshell at all) and unbroken phono cables form cartridge clips to phono input.
So how is this possible?

I'm not sure that the weight of the headshell is, of itself, a consideration apart from its affect on the effective mass of the tonearm, but all the theory again about high-compliance cartridges in low-mass tonearms and low-compliance cartridges in high-mass tonearms I have found in my experience to be unreliable?
Why don't we comment about the mass and construction of the fixed headshells in tonearms?

For me, a removable headshell must have a structural logic and connection to its aluminium or magnesium socket tube.
If the connection to this tube is weak, it will allow torsion or twisting to occur and if there is an off-set between the headshell proper and this socket tube, then a bending moment is created which may allow movement.
The best removable headshells generally are those that are integral with the cartridge.
The Technics EPC100Mk3 and the Fidelity Research FR-7 group of headshell/cartridges are prime examples of these and it's easy to see that the axis of connection to the socket-tube is directly in line with the axis of the headshell.
This structural logic is utilised by Micro Seiki in their H-303X headshell for the MA-505 tonearm HEADSHELLS
Of course there are other points to consider and hopefully this thread will illuminate those?
But I refuse to concede that headshell design is a 'black' art :-)

Regards, Halcro: Henry, I'm going to take sides. Both. Raul is largely correct when he says one cannot know until a combination is tried. There are surprises, such as the deadening of a Signet TK7LCa cartridge when tried on a carbon fiber shell, just this weekend. Restored to a Jeweltone 8.5gm mag. headshell, it "sang" again. The reverse was true for an ADC-ZLM, also involved in the headshell trade.

A delightful clipping from a description of a titanium headshell: "Although it is somewhat heavy (18.5gm), in a carbon fiber (TA?) etc., it differs and weightiness peculiar to metal and forcibleness are charm". The writer, I believe, is expressing that the headshell has a characteristic signature, surely it dosn't stand alone in this.

Hopefully enough information will be gathered from your thread to conclude:
Just as it is accepted there is a "house sound" to be heard from various cartridges, there are identifiable characteristics with headshells of specific materials and design.
Or (re. Raul): There is no formula and it is predominately a need to determine the correct match.

It was mentioned that matching the tonearm is also important. The ADC's Stanwal refered to are good matches with my 12gm eff. mass Technics EPA-250 arm. Both the LMG and DMG designations are magnesium (6.5 and 7.7gm) and work well with the 250. The Sumiko/Lustre at 9.5gm is a high quality azimuth adj. shell but much harder to find. The cast Technics headshells, 7.5gm alu., are well finished, a very rigid design and (IMO) exemplify the "bang for the buck" category.

Are headshell leads to be included in this discussion?

Peace,

Halcro

I too have acquired a tonearm with a removable headshell option, and I could not be happier. I will not deny there is a lot to be said for the one arm bandit tonearms with no detachable headshell, but I like many different types of music (classical, jazz, electronic, international etc) and prefer the option of swapping cartridges to suit my listening tastes accordingly.

From my experience thus far I would have to agree with the premise that headshell, cartridge compliance, and tonearm mass are the first things I consider. Also, wire leads to cartridge, "do I want silver with this cart or do I want too soften things up a bit with copper wire leads." The options are endless and at some point you have to draw the line with the experimenting and just sit back and enjoy the damn thing. At any rate I believe you made a good choice and please do not let my BS nor anyone else cut you off from simply enjoying the music.

Ramon

Geoch,
All good questions.
I too had those questions when I was first deciding which headshells to buy and found there were no readily available sources which could answer?
Hopefully we may uncover some of these answers in this thread? :-)

Greetings Professor (Timeltel),
Good to see you here.
I readily accept your experiences with headshells of differing materials.....and this is something we should all share.
But it should not be a mystery? We know that differing materials perform differently in audio, and in fact carbon fibre has been demonstrated (I believe), to be less than ideal for sound. Lloyd Walker changed his tonearm material to carbon fibre and then realising his mistake, quickly changed it to metal again. There are also one or two manufacturers of carbon fibre arms which have not taken the world by storm?
Material selection is a believable and understandable concept in headshell design and should not be confused with 'voodoo' science?:-)
and yes........headshell leads are of great interest to all of us. Please proceed. :-)