View Full Version : Is there a performance edge between...
CableMaker1
20-10-2011, 23:47
A unicast tonearm versus a tonearm that has a removable headshell?
Is it significantly audible between the two?
Theoetically the fixed shell arm should be better I think, but of course in audio, nothing is ever cut and dried. The SME 309 seems to be a detachable shell arm as a case in point and a properly matched shell on the detachable arms out there may just make the undoubted resonance at 250 - 300Hz or so irrelevant in the final analysis. - What a load of tripe I've posted :mental: - read Simon's post below for a proper explanation....
sq225917
21-10-2011, 17:39
There's as a great a difference between one piece and removable headshell arms as there is within the arms themselves. Just find one you like
There is a current fad for arms with the old SME style collet and pin type of removable headshell. Whilst this system is convenient it also has very clear mechanical limitations that no amount of fancy headshells can address. A good mechanical system can be engineered and SME now use a vastly better split collar design; but even SME abandon the removable headshell for their out and out performance models.
Wakefield Turntables
22-10-2011, 17:00
A unicast tonearm versus a tonearm that has a removable headshell?
Is it significantly audible between the two?
I took a very simple view point on this when I bought my V. I couldn't be arsed with trying hundreds of different headshells and agonising that the next head shell could be the holy grail. This is just my opinion and respect the other guys who have removable head shells. I have a fixed head shell and thats final! No messing around with cartridge alignment, job done! Performance wise I honestly cant say that I have noticed ANY difference between fixed and removable head shell. My ears arn't the best:lol: Hope this helps.
CableMaker1
22-10-2011, 18:03
Thanks all to you for your comments. On my Twin 1200 TTs, I have an SME 309, which has a detachable headshell, and a V which is a unicast arm. I have two different AT MC Cartridges on each of the arms, so I hadnt had a time to contest the two with a single cartridge at this point. had the 309 first, using my own tonearm cable. I was blown away with the results that I had to get the V for the other TT. Both give outstanding results on my TT when coupled with the tonearm cable I use.
The question comes up as I have read that a unicast tonearm is better than a removable headshell version. I never really understood why that is, and to be honest, I still do not. I do have to admit that having an SME on the TT elevated it significantly. I also admit that when I got the SME, I got the Mike New Bearing and the Timestep PSU at the same time and performed the upgrades all at once.
My only two complaints about the SME is its looks compared to the Technics Arm. I love the Technics look, and it does not track well with warp records compared to the Technics arm.
Rexton - to answer your question from another post about the SME being properly aligned - yes it is. The problem about tracking is that when you get deep into the record, if the warp is elevated enough, the warp hits the back of the arm, which lifts the arm/needle from the record. This happens when I get to the middle of the record. I never had this problem with the Technics arm.
Mike
Wakefield Turntables
23-10-2011, 10:15
Thanks all to you for your comments. On my Twin 1200 TTs, I have an SME 309, which has a detachable headshell, and a V which is a unicast arm. I have two different AT MC Cartridges on each of the arms, so I hadnt had a time to contest the two with a single cartridge at this point. had the 309 first, using my own tonearm cable. I was blown away with the results that I had to get the V for the other TT. Both give outstanding results on my TT when coupled with the tonearm cable I use.
The question comes up as I have read that a unicast tonearm is better than a removable headshell version. I never really understood why that is, and to be honest, I still do not. I do have to admit that having an SME on the TT elevated it significantly. I also admit that when I got the SME, I got the Mike New Bearing and the Timestep PSU at the same time and performed the upgrades all at once.
My only two complaints about the SME is its looks compared to the Technics Arm. I love the Technics look, and it does not track well with warp records compared to the Technics arm.
Rexton - to answer your question from another post about the SME being properly aligned - yes it is. The problem about tracking is that when you get deep into the record, if the warp is elevated enough, the warp hits the back of the arm, which lifts the arm/needle from the record. This happens when I get to the middle of the record. I never had this problem with the Technics arm.
Mike
My SME sometimes jumps and down with a warped record but it plays it perfectly :cool: I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that your tonearm moves up and down like a tarts knickers. Its what comes through your speakers that matters :) I also did all my upgrades at the same time which to be honest isn't the best thing to do. I like to now see how individual upgrades have affected the deck. I'll be replacing the TimeStep HE power supply with SR7XL in the next couple of months. I'm in the process of writing some notes about the presentation of music with the Timestep HE but it'll take some time! Anyway, I hope your enjoying your techie journey. :cool:
There is a current fad for arms with the old SME style collet and pin type of removable headshell. Whilst this system is convenient it also has very clear mechanical limitations that no amount of fancy headshells can address. A good mechanical system can be engineered and SME now use a vastly better split collar design; but even SME abandon the removable headshell for their out and out performance models.
However, it's but one aspect of a very complex mix of factors determining arm performance. I guess if we talk in absolutes where effectively we have the perfect arm, you wouldn't have a removable shell.
Personally i think that there are so many things wrong with arms that the shell fixing wouldn't feature high on my list unless it were particularly bad.
I completely agree that there many complex issues - I only address the headshell attachment in this case because that is what the OP asked about.
Whilst it is true that the method by which the headshell attaches (or does not) is but one of a raft of problems, I don't see this as any reason to dismiss it and I certainly wouldn't look to add weaknesses into the system if they can be avoided; SME would appear to agree.
Wakefield Turntables
24-10-2011, 11:32
However, it's but one aspect of a very complex mix of factors determining arm performance. I guess if we talk in absolutes where effectively we have the perfect arm, you wouldn't have a removable shell.
Personally i think that there are so many things wrong with arms that the shell fixing wouldn't feature high on my list unless it were particularly bad.
Which is why I went fixed headshell, less variables to worry about;)
Personally i think that there are so many things wrong with arms that the shell fixing wouldn't feature high on my list unless it were particularly bad.
Ah? so many things? Could you expand please Rob?
Ah? so many things? Could you expand please Rob?
Hi Darren,
The main problem is that they ring.
You'll have a main beam mode usually around 700-1.5kHz and this audibly alters the output from the cartridge.
Then there are the mechanical impedance mismatches wherever materials join, so shells, (if removable) bearings, pillar, counterweight, and connection to the mounting platform. All will alter the transfer of energy on it's path from stylus to TT.
The more obvious ones are friction, azimuth error, and of course geometry which ensures that the cartridge doesn't follow the path of the cutter head, and therefore you get distortion.
Then there is damping.
Sometimes a manufacturer will damp the arm structures, usually the main tube resonance. This does indeed reduce the amplitude of the peak, but in the process you widen the resonance window allowing it to influence a wider portion of the signal. No free lunch!
It's in the context of the above that I'd say don't get too hung-up on having a removable shell :)
Many years ago I made some recordings of different arms as part of a project investigating this stuff.
Below is a recording made with a pick-up mounted at the base of the arm with the sensor in contact with the base. It effectively demonstrates what happens when energy leaves the cartridge and enters the arm/tt system. You'll hear severe ringing on certain vocal sounds where those sounds coincide with the main arm tube resonance:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/eoen0b0fjpnx8ov/DM101mp3.mp3
Well, I don't disagree with any of that - it's all very like what I would have said.
The recording is interesting too.
Thanks Rob,
Very, very interesting. It's certainly a wonder we get the results we do from vinyl.
Does this mean that vinyl sound is as much about choosing a set of distortions you can live with as any notion of high fidelity to the original source?
I'm off to listen to some FLAC files.
Spectral Morn
25-10-2011, 20:18
Best solution, I think, is the one utilised by Graham. The arm tube is removed in total. The arm tube slides onto a guide inner which then meets a threaded piece, you tighten gently until arm tube meets bearing housing.
The Phantom method is heavier and more sturdy than any version of the previous Model Two arm. Graham along with Transfiguration marketed an arm and cartridge all in one at one time, not sure if that is the case now though.
Regards D S D L
Thanks Rob,
Very, very interesting. It's certainly a wonder we get the results we do from vinyl.
Does this mean that vinyl sound is as much about choosing a set of distortions you can live with as any notion of high fidelity to the original source?
I'm off to listen to some FLAC files.
I think that vinyl replay, rather like loudspeakers is a mix of pretty large compromises which is why preferences vary hugely between different vinyl front ends. Thankfully most of the distortions, though quite large in magnitude are of the euphonic variety and so are perceived as differences rather than simply good and bad.
Distortion at the same levels in digital replay replay systems would be much worse subjectively IMO.
To summarise, I'd say that with good vinyl the good bits massively outweigh the bad, which is why we enjoy it so much :)
Well, I don't disagree with any of that - it's all very like what I would have said.
The recording is interesting too.
Mark, the Randy Crawford recording dates me ........... where did the years go :(
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.