When Does A Tonearm Have Medium Effective Mass Etc

[WAPFU]

What is the cut off to determine when a tonearm is light medium or heavy effective mass.
Various cartridges have low to high compliance and should be in a particular effective mass tonearm?
Say the Denon DL-301MrkII, I have read it can be placed on an SME 3009 SII Improved yet the effective mass of the SME says it shouldn't work - unless it say has dampening as in the SME FD200. Yet the Denon will be fine on a Jelco SA 370H. The V15III is high compliance and works well in the SME 3009 SII Improved yet is not supposed to go on the Jelco with its standard headshell supplied.
I need to be enlightened on this topic.

[bastlnut]

hallo,

medium eff. mass tonearms are between 9g and 14g.

regards,
bas

[WAPFU]

Thankyou bastlnut. Interesting at least for me - the SME 3009 Series II Improved with removable head-shell is around 9grms, so fits into the lower range of medium. The Jelco with 20grams effective mass and using the supplied standard headshell is classed as heavy, so to speak. So if the Jelco SA 370h can have a lighter headshell lowering effective mass to 14 grams it will be at the top end of medium.
What is the recommended Tonearm effective mass for the Denon DL-301 MarkII. I can understand the resonant frequency bit.

[bastlnut]

hallo,

i don't think you can get the eff. mass of the 370h down to 14g from the orig. 20g.
using a headshell that is 6g lighter than the original will only reduce the eff. mass by 4g.

when i reviewed the Denon DL-S1 i found that it worked best with 13g-16g tonearms.
the DL 300 that i had re-cantilevered works fine with an 11g SME M2,
but none of the suspension is original.
the Denon says their compliance is 14cu but is measured at 100hz instead of 10hz, but using the 1,6 factor to set the 10hz value does not prove itself to be true as far as tonearm matching here.
the Denon likes a heavier tonearm.
loading too was interesting.
only when i loaded it up to 330 ohm did it start to sing.
it also got louder than at 100 or 200 ohm and the dynamics improved.
400 ohm did not bring any notable improvement with the equipment i used.
now, the DL 300 still has its original coils and and things electrical,
and it sounds best at 100 ohms.
i think the 301 mkI is the same but the new version may like the higher setting.

regards,
bas

[Ldg]

the Denon says their compliance is 14cu but is measured at 100hz instead of 10hz, but using the 1,6 factor to set the 10hz value does not prove itself to be true as far as tonearm matching here

That's because compliance@100Hz has a completely different meaning, and is not intended to be used to evaluate lf resonance !

There is no 'ratio' that is applicable to convert. It varies significantly between cartridges, especially those with heavy or light damping.

[bastlnut]

the Denon says their compliance is 14cu but is measured at 100hz instead of 10hz, but using the 1,6 factor to set the 10hz value does not prove itself to be true as far as tonearm matching here

That's because compliance@100Hz has a completely different meaning, and is not intended to be used to evaluate lf resonance !

There is no 'ratio' that is applicable to convert. It varies significantly between cartridges, especially those with heavy or light damping.

la la la la

regards,
bas

[Spyes]

I'm wondering about this too... I have the Technics SL-1900, according to the page on VE about this table it's got the "universal, static balanced" tonearm, but I can't find any information about what the mass actually is? I understand it's in the low-mid, but that may be wrong..

[Ldg]

the Denon says their compliance is 14cu but is measured at 100hz instead of 10hz, but using the 1,6 factor to set the 10hz value does not prove itself to be true as far as tonearm matching here

That's because compliance@100Hz has a completely different meaning, and is not intended to be used to evaluate lf resonance !

There is no 'ratio' that is applicable to convert. It varies significantly between cartridges, especially those with heavy or light damping.

la la la la

regards,
bas

Compliance@100Hz is widely misunderstood and misinterpreted. Check out Yosh's web pages for confirmation of how it's defined and what it means.

That's why, as in this case, there can sometimes be a poor match from rules of thumb and ratios, when trying to convert. Because there is no set relationship. Those ratios and rules will often be plain wrong, as it seems in this case.

I mean, think about it. If the purpose of compliance spec is to define lf resonant behaviour, why on earth would it be specified at 100Hz ? Compliance@100Hz is mostly defined by suspension damping, whereas compliance@10Hz is mostly defined by suspension spring. They are cousins, but not necessarily related in a well defined way.

Compliance@100Hz is not intended to be definitive as to 10Hz arm matching. And it isn't ! It has a completely seperate purpose.

[bastlnut]

[quote="bastlnut"]the Denon says their compliance is 14cu but is measured at 100hz instead of 10hz, but using the 1,6 factor to set the 10hz value does not prove itself to be true as far as tonearm matching here

That's because compliance@100Hz has a completely different meaning, and is not intended to be used to evaluate lf resonance !

There is no 'ratio' that is applicable to convert. It varies significantly between cartridges, especially those with heavy or light damping.

la la la la

regards,
bas

Compliance@100Hz is widely misunderstood and misinterpreted. Check out Yosh's web pages for confirmation of how it's defined and what it means.

That's why, as in this case, there can sometimes be a poor match from rules of thumb and ratios, when trying to convert. Because there is no set relationship. Those ratios and rules will often be plain wrong, as it seems in this case.

I mean, think about it. If the purpose of compliance spec is to define lf resonant behaviour, why on earth would it be specified at 100Hz ? Compliance@100Hz is mostly defined by suspension damping, whereas compliance@10Hz is mostly defined by suspension spring. They are cousins, but not necessarily related in a well defined way.

Compliance@100Hz is not intended to be definitive as to 10Hz arm matching. And it isn't ! It has a completely seperate purpose.[/quote]
you really don't get it....
we already know that and know where to look for the info as well.
the point is that you just had to post an explanation to prove how smart you are.
so......
la la la la

regards,
bas

[Ldg]

You're right Bas, I don't get it. If you already know this, then why even mention a '1.6 factor' ? Or why any surprise as to obtaining an odd result that way ? You chose to mention it, bas..........doesn't make much sense in context if you already know it to be flawed..........?

I am actually agreeing with you, bas, and offering up an explanation as to the discrepancy. Which is not very widely known, and plain helpful to understand in this case.

Presumably you post 'la la la la' when you really don't understand what's going on, but feel you should, and are a bit uncomfortable bas ? I shall make a note

[Alec124c41]

Cut the theory.
I am using a Denon DL-301 II on an MMT arm, with the 12 gram headshell. Beautiful!

Cheers,
Alec

[WAPFU]

Thank you once again Alec.

DL-301mrkII is fine in a SA 370H.
DL 110 or DL 160 will require the addition of the headshell weight for the Jelco?

The 301 mark II will work in an SME 3009 Series II Improved with FD200 dampening and or the headshell weight?

0-9grm = Low
9-14 is medium
14 plus high
effective masses.

Give or take dampening which will alter things a wee bit?

[Alec124c41]

I have an SME 3009 imp S2 (removable headshell) with the 108 gm counterweight. It is a light arm.
The 301 sounds better with more effective mass.
The max combined cart/shell weight it will take is 18 grams.
I have purchased another weight, and affixed an additional weight to the back of it, now 127 grams, so I can try some of the lower-compliance cartridges. The weight must be rigid.
The damping should help. I have no experience there.

Cheers,
Alec

[WAPFU]

As always thank you for your valued input very appreciative of your candid, frank to the point assistance.