What cart. for the Reed 3P?

Dear CH: I think that this audio subject is not about to trust on something or not. It is just mathematics and you can use any calculator over the net and will gives you the same resonance frequency ( 6 hz. ). 

What we can't trust is in a test record that comes with " natural " errors " from the recording process and during playback. This is what I don't trust, mathematics are just mathematics and here it's not a " rocket science ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

ch.: """  And if you're measuring, don't trust the voice announcements on the Hi-Fi News test record. They're quite a ways off. """

that's what you can read in the Steve Hoffman site through a post in a thread spoken about.

R.

Hmm, that's interesting, never heard about errors on Hi-Fi Test Record before. How can we measure resonanse freq. in real life with other record? Any other records (proper one) available to make sure the Hi-Fi Test record is not a good tool for it? Anyone?? 

Raul, (1) I have removed the brush entirely from my 980LZS. This probably reduces its weight by 2-3 gm. (It would be interesting to know the exact weight of the brush assembly.) And (2) with age, it is quite likely that the actual compliance of the 980LZS is lower than factory spec.

Both of these factors would tend to increase the resonant frequency somewhat, perhaps into a more acceptable zone.  As you said, it does work well, regardless.

I wrote elsewhere that I mounted an Acutex LPM320 (Compliance = 42) on my FR64S with Dynavector headshell, and amazingly there is NO problem with resonant frequency.  If the FR64S + headshell + Acutex has a collective effective mass of 30g, then the predicted RF is ~5 Hz.  My guess is that the Acutex has lost compliance.  (On the other hand, it tracks piano as well as or better than any other cartridge I own.) I do take you seriously as regards your reservations about the FR tonearms, but this combo sounds superb, much to my surprise.

Dear lewm: I use my Stantons and Pickering cartridges with ou that brush too. In theory the brush in this type of cartridges ( Shure too. ) helps to damp in some way but even that I don't like to use with.

Now, perhaps you are rigth about that the actul compliance is lower than specs and could be that way before the cartridge suspension settle down where then could be higher than specs but we can't be sure about.

Your experiences with the Acutex 320 is not different from my experiences with high mass tonearms ( I was in love with. ) but there are several reasons why is that way and first than all is that the 320 performs great in any tonearm because is a great design but ( always exist a " but " with me. ) does not means is " optimal " set up, just like us.

You, me and almost all audiophiles are accustom to very high distortions ( every kind ) through our audio life experiences.
We are accustom to because just from the begin many of us were oriented ( example ) to use tube technology on electronics when in those old times normally was acceptable 5% of distortion in that kind of electronics and the very best designs came with a " low " 1% on that distortion figure and this was not the only high distortion source in the system because in those old times no ones cares about Baerwald/Löfgren alignments in tonearm/cartridge, no one spoken about and all our cartridge set ups were way off to precision and all those set ups were surrounded by very high distortions only for that factor.
Additional does not exist TT plattforms as ( example ) Vibraplane or the like to low vibrations/distortions and everything were picked-up by our cartridges and what about room treatment?  that basically did not exist in those old times. Even how to take care about cleaned job with cartridge stylus and LP's were " arcaic "

I live with all those and fortunatelly " things " improved but in some of us that " distortions cancer " never was totally recover and like  it or not still lives in our mind.

Today you can read through different threads and posts all over the net thinks like:

"" I love this " sweet " sound  or I like more " romantic " sound. I don't like it's so bright.  """ 

and many expressions like those when the MUSIC has a natural agresiveness. It's easy to corroborate this we have just to hear at 2-3 m. a player playing a horn or piano at natural levels and we will know for sure that that swetness or romatic expressions just does not exist.

In the other side that we can't hear or be aware of distortions that does not means can't exist. We don't need to see that the tonearm/cartridge skips to know that the resonance frequency is out of the ideal range, problem is that that is happening at microscopic levels down the stylus/grooves and generating distortions.

Not always lowering distortions like us, especially at the begin with,  till we learn and over time we now accustom our " mind " to those lower audio system kind of quality performance levels.
It's a time learning system, it does not works in " automatic " because sometimes we can like those lower distortions ( depends of the kind of those distortions. ) and sometimes we take longer time for not only like it but to know why we like it.

Is a long time learning process and not easy process with no specific rules to follow other that what other people learned and share and our self experiences. We need tennacity about and never give up.

Anyway, good listening.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.