Technics headshell weight/ Audio Technica 440mla c

Thanks Fleib; I've looked at your contibutions and I am impressed by your knowledge in this area. I note the Technics 1200 arm has an effective mass of 12 g. as does the SME 3009 II, non improved. Does this mean that by simple subtraction both arms have effective masses of 4.5 gms WITHOUT headshell, as both the original SME headshell with wires and the Technics 1200 with wires both weigh 7.5 gms?? I find this interesting, as past implications have been on this and other forums that SL 1200 arms are heavy, when in reality they are the same effective mass as the 3009II, often thought of as optimal with high compliance cartridges such as th Shure V15III!

Hi Boofer, Effect mass without headshell might be a meaningless concept, depending on what you're trying to calculate. I guess you could look at it that way as long as you're using standard SME style headshells, but your results for E mass will be an approximation. Weight distribution might be different. Weight behind the cartridge should contribute less to E mass than weight at, or in front of the cart. BTW, calculations for resonant frequency are also an approximation. For an exact resonant frequency, get a test record.

I'm not positive if that weight distribution aspect is still valid. On Karma a physicist called Luckydog recently said, due to a quirk in the math for common arm lengths E mass is not increased solely due to length. I haven't quite digested all the implications. E mass is the same as MOI and distance from the center of rotation is a factor.

The 1200, like a Rega has a med/light arm suitable for a wide range of carts. Maybe people were thinking of the SME series III which has E mass of something like 5g? At any rate I suspect you're overthinking this aspect. While a "perfect" resonance of 10Hz is one octave above 5Hz warp frequency and one octave below the audible band, there might be other synergistic factors that are of greater importance. Where you get into real trouble is with a low compliance cart on a low mass arm. If the resonance approaches the audible band you're likely to get intermodulation distortion from that resonance.

The consequences of a low resonance frequency are tracking warps and susceptibility to mechanical and acoustic feedback. If that's not a problem then SQ is the other consideration. Often a med/high cu cart can sound sluggish dragging a high mass arm around, but it's hard to generalize. In such a situation arm quality, rigidity, bearing friction, etc. might be of greater importance.

If you're interested in a more detailed discussion you're welcome to join in here:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=88878.620
Bottom of page 32.
Regards,

Hello Fleib: I got data from Ortofon that their 110 tonearm weighs 3.5 gms. without headshell. I assumed you could simply add the headshell weight to that value to get the tonearm Effective Mass, from which you could figure resonance, etc. How does Vinylengine figur effective TA mass on tonearms with detachable headshells? By the way, I just got my Virtuoso back from Soundsmith, and placed it on an unmodified Technics SL 1300, in the same cabinet I can play off against a Rega RP8 with an Ortofon Cadenza Red. I'm dismayed to say that the old Technics may better the new Rega for thousands less$$

Boofer, Weight and eff mass are not the same thing. If you google eff mass you'll see that computations are complex.
3.5g arm tube weight seems light for the Ortofon 110, but I really don't know. I would think the headshell connector and collet would weigh a couple of grams?

VE publishes mfg specs and eff mass would include stock headshell. There might be some mistakes there, just as there are in the cart database. Once again, if you get a test record you can see resonance without having to get a scope. If you use carts of known compliance and know fastener weight, you can use the calculators to solve for eff mass. Your AT carts 440 (18cu) and Virtuoso (15cu) and Ortofon should average out to a good estimate. Some other hand made carts might vary more from mfg specs.

I looked up the 1300. The description of the motor reads similarly to that of the VPI Classic Direct. The revolutionary design uses the platter as the rotor and the base as the stator. It also has a brushless motor. Earlier designs had the platter sitting on the rotor. VPI has the platter as rotor and a circuit board stator and such niceties as a 20lb platter, massive base and expensive motor and 3D arm. So it's essentially the same, give or take about $29,900?

Joking aside, you don't need a million dollar record player to enjoy a record. If you haven't already added weight inside the 1300, that should go a long way toward solidifying the sound. Non-hardening modeling clay is easy to work and lead is great for slowing vibrations. Just leave room for the motor to breathe.

The Cadenza line gives an interesting view of voicing a cart. Yours has a fine line on an al cantilever. Blue has FG 70/ruby, bronze has tapered al/Replicant and Black is boron/shibata. When yours wears, you could send it to Soundsmith for a level 3 and it should be similar to a Blue. It's interesting that Bronze goes back to al with the Replicant tip. It looks like the generators are the same.

If you're comparing the tables with different carts, it might be apples to oranges, although sometimes you can tell. Enjoy.
Regards,

Hi, Fleib; your expertise is greatly appreciated; much of your advice has already been implemented, and much of it will be in the future. You have answered and resolved many mysteries I have had over the years, for which I am grateful! To have access to someone like yourself makes membership in Audiogon truly worthwhile, in my opinion!