2. analog
  3. 1412834749

The Arm/Cartridge Matching Myth

When I began my journey in high-end audio 36 years ago….no-one ever wrote about arm and cartridge matching nor tonearm resonant frequency…?
Over the last 10 years or so…this topic has become not only ubiquitous, but has mutated beyond its definition, to THE guiding principle of matching cartridge to tonearm….❓❗️😵
The Resonant Frequency can be calculated using a complex formula relating Tonearm Effective Mass to the cartridge’s Compliance….or it can be simply measured using a Test record of various frequency sweeps.
The RECOMMENDED Resonant Frequency of any tonearm/cartridge combination is between 8-12Hz.
But WHY is this the recommended frequency and WHAT does it really mean…?

The raison d’etre of this Resonant Frequency…is to avoid WARPED records inducing ‘resonance’ into the tonearm…..
Say what…❓😵
WARPED records….❓❗️
Yes…..ONLY warped records❗️😎
But doesn’t it have any meaning for NORMAL records…❓
None whatsoever…..😊👍
Let me explain….🎼

A badly warped record induces the tonearm to rise and fall rapidly on the ‘sprung’ cantilever of the cartridge.
Depending on the severity and frequency of this warping…..a subsonic frequency between 2-5Hz is induced so if your tonearm/cartridge Resonant Frequency dips into this frequency range….it will begin resonating and thus miss-track and/or induce hum through your system.🎤
Keeping the lower limits of your tonearm/cartridge Resonant Frequency to 8Hz simply insures against this possibility.🎶

So what about the 12Hz upper limit…❓
This simply insures against the possibility of any ultra low-level frequency information which MAY be on the record, also inducing this same miss-tracking or hum. For instance if your tonearm/cartridge Resonant Frequency was 18Hz and you had an organ record or one containing synthesised bass going down to 16Hz…..your tonearm may miss-track or you MAY develop a hum❓😢

So how many badly WARPED record do you possess…❓
I have three out of a thousand or so……and have NEVER experienced miss-tracking or hum even on these three…❗️😍

Yet these days….everyone (without exception it seems)…even tonearm and cartridge designers….happily follow the dictum of this Arm/Cartridge MATCH as if it affected sound quality…..❓
This Resonant Frequency has ZERO affect on the sound quality of a particular tonearm/cartridge combination and I have proved it hundreds of times with a dozen different arms and over 40 cartridges.

The best match for ANY cartridge ever made….is simply the very best tonearm you can afford…whatever its Effective Mass…😘
128x128halcro
davide256's avatar
davide256
399 posts
 
Stylus compliance is what matters... mechanically the same as matching shocks on a car. As an extreme example, the light weight Grace 707 tonearm creates interesting wow and flutter effects matched with inexpensive stiff suspension Grado cartridges with any record the slightest out of round. And heavy tonearms with highly compliant cartridges easily bottom out on records that are not perfectly flat.

So if you have a collection of treasures that are less than perfect LP's, matching compliance to mass does matter.
zavato's avatar
zavato
1,399 posts
 
Halcro wrote- "When I began my journey in high-end audio 36 years
ago….no-one ever wrote about arm and cartridge matching nor tonearm
resonant frequency…"

I've been into audio slightly longer- and I can't disagree more- maybe I read
different stuff but arm mass and stylus compliance and resonant frequency
were a well noted topic. I was urged not to buy a particular cartridge by a
local hifi shop as I was told its compliance was too high for the tone arm on
my Kenwood table.

There was a company- I don't recall who it was, that made a device that
attached to a head she'll that damped tone arm resonances (a small piston
device thatvattached to the headshell and made contact with the LP- who
made that?). Let's also look at the damper on the Shure V15 type 4- also
their to address this issue. Then there's this 1973 article.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=1950http://www.aes.org/e-
lib/browse.cfm?elib=1950
peterayer
1,382 posts
 
Halcro, my post is not about tone arm designers. It is about cartridge designers.
rodman99999
6,129 posts
 
The Shure M97xE had a viscous damped, "dynamic Stabilizer" as well. Pickering and Stanton both had weighted brushes, attached to their stylus assemblies, in an attempt to control movement/resonances, before Shure. Pickering had tonearms that were viscous damped, with the intent of damping resonances, back in the 50's. Some history on damped arms and carts: (http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/silicone_damping_e.html) (http://www.technicalaudio.com/pdf/Gordon_Clark_folder/Gray_Research_net_price_list_103_1955.pdf)
peterayer
1,382 posts
 
Halcro, I was trying to make the point that if one knows which arm or arms a cartridge designer used to develop a particular cartridge, he could then perhaps assume that that cartridge/tone arm match is pretty good, at least in the mind of the cartridge designer.
More to discover