Headshell 'rolling' with the SL-1210

[Marco]

Hi Guys,

Just a quickie to say that I've been experimenting recently with detachable headshells on my SL-1210, and there's a new boy on the block which comfortably outperforms the already excellent ZU-Supreme metal alloy headshell from LP Gear.

I recently ordered an Audio Technica LH-18 headshell from Audiocubes to use with my DL-103 Pro, which comes with PCOCC headshell leads and is shown here:

http://www.audiocubes2.com/brand/Aud...b93456ce01d1d7

Ok it was $117 dollars including shipping costs, which is about £60 and a heck of a lot of dosh for a headshell, but boy does this thing make a difference!

The sound is just much more controlled, solid and detailed, and not that bass weight or 'heft' was exactly lacking before with the 103 Pro in the ZU-Supreme, but with the AT headshell the sheer slam, solidity, and 'menace' in the bass from the 103 Pro is now frankly staggering!!

So why the big difference? Two reasons:

1) The 'Technichard' construction material of the AT headshell. It's ultra-rigid and seems to remove more unwanted resonance than the Zu-Supreme.

2) The 18g mass.

When I was ordering the headshell I wasn't sure which 'mass option' to go for as there are three choices: 13, 15 and 18g, and when I lifted the headshell out of its box I thought that it was going to be too heavy (too much mass) which would result in a 'heavy', ponderous, kind of sound - not a chance!!

It took a bit of balancing out, as its combined weight with the 103 is 26.5g, and that's not including the allen bolts. With those in place it'll probably be nearer 30g! But it just shows how much mass the 103 likes to 'see' at the headshell before it performs optimally, and hammers home once again the fact that there's absolutely no chance it will work properly in the lightweight fixed headshells common to all modern tonearms. Used in that context it will sound imprecise, edgy, and lack the weight and body it delivers when optimally set-up in a high-mass headshell.

The other point to note is that the AT headhell is beautifully finished to the very highest standard - it looks reassuringly 'expensive' like a finely crafted jewel, and is a complete joy to use. It has full azimuth adjustment but I didn't have to use this facility as, from standard, unlike other headshells including the ZU-Supreme, there is no 'play' whatsoever when the headshell mates with the bayonet fitting on the tonearm - it just fits correctly and nice and snugly.

As far as alignment goes it's a breeze as there are two pairs of pre-drilled holes on the underneath of the headshell. Simply selecting the ones nearest the end and attaching the cartridge to those with short allen bolts ensures perfect alignment when using a 103, and with the holes being predrilled you know that the cartridge is fixed squarely onto the headshell and that there is no chance of it moving once secured. It's as if the headshell was designed with a DL-103 in mind. Perhaps that's the case.

Lastly, the supplied PCOCC headshell leads are of the highest quality and easily as good as the Clearaudio cartridge leads, although not quite up to the same standard as my reference Cardas HSL PCC leads fitted with Rhodium over Silver plate tags and Beryllium copper tension springs.

Anyway, to sum up, for anyone who wants the highest quality detachable headshell possible for both a DL-103 and for use on an SL-1210, there is only one option: the Audio Technica LH-18. It's a phenomenal little bit of engineering!

Marco.

[scoobs]

Ooh new toys! get some pics together and post that review!
I was told that these LH-18's are the best headshell a man can get. I agree with you regards the 103 and lightweight one piece tonearms, you're simply scratching the surface of the 103's potential (no pun intended)

My friendly amp designer was going to throw one in for me for a few quid, but I decided my 103 is heavy enough, and I was right, my custom counterweight would be too light for one of those bad boys.

Have I read somewhere that you have put J7's super slippery oil into your 1210? was this difficult?

[Marco]

Scoobs, no joke, the difference the LH-18 makes is quite amazing.

It seems a bit bonkers (even for me, haha ) to wax lyrical about a bloody headshell, but trust me it's up there with one of the most significant mods I've done to the 1210, although no doubt the difference comes from the fact that I'm using a 103.

'Normal' cartridges wouldn't need, or even like, the extra mass, although they would still benefit from the headshell's extremely low resonance properties. I had to use a bit of a mad combination of Thru's counterweights to balance it out, though!

Yes I'm using J7s extra-slippery oil, and no, it wasn't difficult. You just have to know how to remove the platter (by twisting it) to get access to the bearing.

Marco.

[pure sound]

Interesting stuff Marco. Its a well trodden path

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/...stID=1876#1876

The cartridge I use weighs >20g already but I've noticed this effect previously when it was mounted in my old Helius Orion which had the provision to use 6 bolts to mount it! Always sounded way better yet not as a result of a better fixing to the headshell, just the extra eff mass. I'd imagine some suspended TT designs might not respond well if the arm/cartridge Fs got too low (ie close to the natural bounce frequency of the suspension) but with a fixed deck it should be ok.

[DSJR]

Goes back even further to the seventies where an "infra bass" inspired friend of mine used to mass load his ADC XLM to get a resonant frequency of 4-5 Hz on his turntable (I forget which, but Angus MacKenzie rated it best on W&F figures, so it must pre-date the rise of the LP12 by a year or two).

Surprisingly, the XLM (VERY highly compliant) didn't seem over bothered at all and very low frequency info like tube trains on London church/cathedral recordings or air conditioning were certainly reproduced better. This gent modified his Naim 12s pre not to roll off below 10Hz too.....

[Peter Stockwell]

It looks as if you only have three choices of Cartridge position on this headshell ?

[Peter Stockwell]

Just got the Sumiko headshell, it's a lot heavier than the Technics, I think it's more rigid. It's a shame the technics alignment jig no llonger works, I'll have to break out the old alignment protractor (Dennesson, I think it's called). Anyway, I eyeballed a reasonable alignment. I think the little headshell wires have to wake up a little, seemed a bit bass light, but that does vary with pressing.

Now, I'm trying to make up my mind if the Teccie is lacking in midbass, or if the CDX/XPS exagerrates that part of the spectrum.

à suivre ...

[Marco]

Hi Peter,

The Sumiko should be better, certainly in terms of rigidity, so the cartridge should be fixed to a more resonant free housing, but I sometimes wonder if these heavier headshells benefit more people using DL-103s because it likes extra mass.

I'm not quite so sure 'normal' cartridges benefit the same from the effect. It's a suck it and see one I'm afraid. Certainly Richard (Gromit) got some benefit with his Lyra Dorian from the Zu Supreme I sent him, but that might have been more due to the Cardas headshell leads than the headshell itself.

As for the headshell leads that came with the Sumiko if you find they're altering the sound in a way which you don't like try connecting the leads you were using before with the Technics headshell and see what happens. The quality of headshell leads supplied with headshells I've found is sometimes somewhat dubious, certainly I didn't like the ones which came with the Zu.

It's probably worth investing in a decent set of leads such as those from Cardas, or if you PM me your address I can send you a set of Audio Technics PCOCC ones to try which might be better than what you're using just now.

Regarding the AT headshell I use, you're right there is a limited choice of cartridge alignment options compared to the 'slide' arrangement available normally, however the predrilled holes on the underneath appear to be strategically positioned to enable correct alignment for most cartridges. The holes nearest the end were spot on for the DL-103 but I can't comment on suitability with other cartridges.

Marco.

[Peter Stockwell]

Marco,

Changing from the Technics to the Sumiko is worthwhile, the wires look ok, but I suspect they need a bit of cooking. I installed the Sumiko without the finger lift. The technics heashell I was using was one I had lying around from the days I was using an AT1007 on the Garrard rig. So the wires had been well cooked. I was also playing some freshly cleaned records, and those, too, sometimes take a while to settle, for the stylus to find its groove.

I think that the mass is ok on a normal cartridge, the Grado is not particularly high compliance, I think of that extra mass as meaning a more stable platform (Think of Newtons laws, Action/Reaction, etc). I certainly didn't see any nasty wobbles with the arm. I might also have inadvertantly got my Blue and Green wires crossed, which may make a difference too. I think I've forgotten more than I knew about TT setup .

I ordered the Cardas wires with the PS and Arm rewire from KAB so sooner, or latter, I'll have those to hand.

Thanks for the offer of the AT wires, but I think I have enough options to try for now, and not enough time to get to the bottom of all of them.

cheers

Peter

[Peter Stockwell]

Marco,

Changing from the Technics to the Sumiko is worthwhile, ...
I think that the mass is ok on a normal cartridge, the Grado is not particularly high compliance, I think of that extra mass as meaning a more stable platform (Think of Newtons laws, Action/Reaction, etc).

...

I might also have inadvertantly got my Blue and Green wires crossed, which may make a difference too. I think I've forgotten more than I knew about TT setup .

I had my wires all crossed, I thought it sounded all out of phase, I also added the aux weight. Much Mo' betterer now!

cheers