Hadcock Arm Mods

[DarrenHW]

Having just rewired and installed a GH228 I bought on here last October I'm very happy with the improvement (with my Shure M95HE) over the Rega RB300 I was using. I now want to turn my attention to modding the Hadcock, the most obvious area for improvement would be to increase the arm length to GH242 spec. To do this I plan on cutting a new stainless steel arm tube and have a few questions:


Why stainless steel over aluminium, I've Google'd this but can't find any info?
What grade of stainless steel, all I can find in a suitable dimension is 316?
Any thoughts on internal (Silicone / Cotton Wool) or external dampening (Carbon Fibre sleeve) of the arm tube?
Where can I get some more Silicone dampening fluid?
When I bought the arm it did not come with the original Bias Weights, any suggestions for a more cost friendly alternative than Hadcock replacements?
Does anyone have any experience with the XTC Counter Weight?

[Reffc]

I suspect that Hadcock use stainless for a good reason, not least to achieve the desired stiffness/mass required for the design, so best to use whatever they do. I have the 242 so if you need any dimensions etc, let me know. be careful with adding any mass to the arm or you will change the effective mass. You should aim for the same effective mass as the original version (242). A little out either way wont matter. Why sleeve it? I'd just keep it simple. No internal damping I think is used on the original that I can see.

[DarrenHW]

I'm glad you've replied Paul as it's down to you I have the Hadcock! When I picked up my first 401 I was looking into servicing and plinth designs and found this http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?71336-Garrard-401-strip-down-service-and-new-plinth-build and later after Andr'e (Barbarian) made reference to it this http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?72444-Shure-Thang! I'd had the M95HE sat in a draw for sometime, it was mounted on a Headshell I'd bought but I wanted the Headshell and never tried the cart. After I installed it on the RB300 I was so impressed with it's musicality I bought the first Hadcock I found for sale, I wasn't aware of the differences between the 242 and 228 at the time :doh:.

I also have a pile of Oak block board aclimatising in the lounge at the moment as I was going to copy your plinth design and will once I've completed the slate plinth (http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?36442-Slatedeck-(Garrard)-Armboard-Advice/page3), as I have all the materials, I've created my template and have two 401's, then I'll just have to decide if I want to copy you even further and buy an MP-500 :eek:.

As for the sleeve, I found this http://www.hifiwigwam.com/showthread.php?87334-Carbon-fibre-Hadcock-rebuild-finished! which I thought looked interesting and I've read a few references to an original SS arm that was silicone filled, I too have concerns over how this will alter the effective mass so maybe as you say keeping it simple is the best option. Thank you for your offer of dimensions :thumbsup:.

[Reffc]

Those thread links ring a bell Darren! ;)

I think just going the simple option is the best option as soft damping inside stainless tube is likely to have limited damping properties anyway (unless stuffed tight). I can see that silicon might be better but that, at a guess, would increase effective mass substantially and prevent future rewiring. You could try both stainless and as per the other link, a bolt blank or arrow blank. I would have thought that most quality arrow tubes in carbon or aluminium would be good as they have good stiffness (high tensile strength axially). Easton arrow tubing is good for this. One of the issues with mating aluminium alloy to steel is the risk of galvanic corrosion though unless the ally is coated (insulated).

I still use the same plinth design and it works very well with the 401. Good luck with the build:thumbsup:

[Marco]

Yup, good luck with this, Dazza! The ‘Haddy’ is an excellent arm (as you know I’ve used one before: a GH242 Integra).

Paul’s right about the issue of mass, but do remember that if you’re intending to use a DL-103 cartridge with the arm, that MORE mass is precisely what you’ll need (around 18g of it, in order to optimise the Denon), although you could do it at the headshell end instead, by fitting a nice chunky one instead of the rather ‘flimsy’ item normally fitted.

In the former respect, you could look at having two arm-tubes: one at the stock weight Hadcock intended, and a heavier one, for low-compliance MCs, such as the Denon. In either case, it’s sensible at this stage to factor in the requirements of the partnering cartridge, whatever that may be, so have a think about that. Later on, you can even think about cryo-treating, as old George H (a great old guy - I remember chatting to him on the phone once) rated the resulting effect….

All in all, if you get it right, the results should be excellent! :cool:

Marco.

[DarrenHW]

In the former respect, you could look at having two arm-tubes: one at the stock weight Hadcock intended, and a heavier one, for low-compliance MCs, such as the Denon. In either case, it’s sensible at this stage to factor in the requirements of the partnering cartridge, whatever that may be, so have a think about that. Later on, you can even think about cryo-treating, as old George H (a great old guy - I remember chatting to him on the phone once) rated the resulting effect….

All in all, if you get it right, the results should be excellent! :cool:

Marco.

You read my mind! That is exactly my intention 1 arm for the M95HE and another heavier arm to try a DL 103 (I'm trying really hard not to look at the 12" Jelco that's just been posted FS on here, I know, I know :doh:). What I want to do now though is concentrate on the arm for the M95HE. I want to get the arm and counter weight sorted before you visit and spend an afternoon fine tuning only for me to replace the arm and make it for nothing. Time to K.I.S.S. and just replace the arm with a longer SS tube, I asked for advice and this is what I'm getting so I would be truly stupid not to follow it.

Any thoughts on the XTC Counter Weight? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/XTC-UPGRADE-COUNTERWEIGHT-HADCOCK-GH228-tonearm-FINE-ADJUSTMENT-/111614580929?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item19fcbf58c1 I've installed the XTC Thrust Bearing (as per Paul's thread) and was impressed with the improvement.

[The Barbarian]

Those 'M95HE' are well good, i use one all the time now..

[Marco]

You read my mind!


That’s ‘cos I know you, daftee! :D


That is exactly my intention 1 arm for the M95HE and another heavier arm to try a DL 103 (I'm trying really hard not to look at the 12" Jelco that's just been posted FS on here, I know, I know :doh:). What I want to do now though is concentrate on the arm for the M95HE.


Sounds like a good plan :) Leave the Jelco alone just now, until you’ve got the Hadcock right. Then you can start exploring the joys (or otherwise) of 12” tonearms.


I want to get the arm and counter weight sorted before you visit and spend an afternoon fine tuning only for me to replace the arm and make it for nothing.


No worries. We’ll get it ‘singing’ nicely once you’re happy with the effectiveness of the mods.


Any thoughts on the XTC Counter Weight? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/XTC-UPGRADE-COUNTERWEIGHT-HADCOCK-GH228-tonearm-FINE-ADJUSTMENT-/111614580929?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_3&hash=item19fcbf58c1 I've installed the XTC Thrust Bearing (as per Paul's thread) and was impressed with the improvement.

Can’t comment on how it sounds, as I haven’t used one, but you’re certainly going to need something at the other end to balance out the added mass at the headshell, if you apply it, when using a DL-103, so why not? It may be a useful thing to have.

Incidentally, in terms of adding mass, I’d add only a little to the arm-tube itself, and most of it to the headshell, as that’s where the weight will be most effective. I’ve got something ideal you can use for that: a lovely solid-brass headshell spacer, custom-made to fit the DL-103, like a glove. It has drilled-out sides, to take the mounting screws, and is of the perfect mass to optimise the cartridge! ;)

I’ll bring that with me when you’ve got your DL-103 and we’re setting up the arm and fine-tuning it. Have you had any thoughts in terms of which 103 you fancy? My advice would be to go for one of the re-bodied ones, as IME the shell material makes more of an important difference than a ‘fancier’ stylus.

Marco.

[DarrenHW]

Those 'M95HE' are well good, i use one all the time now..

Indeed! I liked the sound of it from the first time I tried it but I'm surprised how much better it is on the Hadcock (I know it shouldn't come as a surprise synergy, synergy, synergy!) detail retrieval is now very close to the AT440MLa (the only area I considered the AT better) but the Shure's soundstage is so much bigger. Bass is the biggest surprise it's much more controlled and whilst it doesn't slam like a Stanton it's far deeper than I imagined I'd achieve tracking at ~1g. Vocals are far cleaner now, on the Rega I had a slight haze around vocals this has reduced dramatically and all of this is with brand new tonearm cable. Correct length (for head shell) arm tube and proper (Marco boy) setup can only build on this. I know I'm banging on about this but it's the most enjoyable arm/cart combination I've had, I was wondering how much I'd have to spend on an arm to equal the FX.1200 I had on the SL1200, as it turns out I haven't had to spend much to better it (for me, in my system, IMO, YMMV etc, etc...:)).

Have you decided on a replacement stylus yet Andr'e?


That’s ‘cos I know you, daftee! :D

LOL, I hadn't even thought a DL 103 would be a suitable cart for a Unipivot (or vice versa) until I saw one in a thread yesterday morning, so maybe you're giving me more credit than I deserve :).


Sounds like a good plan :) Leave the Jelco alone just now, until you’ve got the Hadcock right. Then you can start exploring the joys (or otherwise) of 12” tonearms.

Firmly on the back burner but the 103 on a 12" arm's such a classic combo, how can I not try it?




No worries. We’ll get it ‘singing’ nicely once you’re happy with the effectiveness of the mods.

Can’t comment on how it sounds, as I haven’t used one, but you’re certainly going to need something at the other end to balance out the added mass at the headshell, if you apply it, when using a DL-103, so why not? It may be a useful thing to have.


I look forward to it although probably going to be the back end of April now, thanks to the unreliable brickie I was telling you about:(. I'll order the CW a week or so before, then I can send it back if it's not up to much.



Incidentally, in terms of adding mass, I’d add only a little to the arm-tube itself, and most of it to the headshell, as that’s where the weight will be most effective. I’ve got something ideal you can use for that: a lovely solid-brass headshell spacer, custom-made to fit the DL-103, like a glove. It has drilled-out sides, to take the mounting screws, and is of the perfect mass to optimise the cartridge! ;)

I’ll bring that with me when you’ve got your DL-103 and we’re setting up the arm and fine-tuning it. Have you had any thoughts in terms of which 103 you fancy? My advice would be to go for one of the re-bodied ones, as IME the shell material makes more of an important difference than a ‘fancier’ stylus.

Marco.

The DL 103's firmly on the back burner too, as you know I've fancied one for a while but I have other priorities. I bought the SEAS tweeters Ken had in his 66's from him so I really want to turn my attention back to the 44's next, one pair old skool the other pair new ready for a mini bake-off and eventually get them finished :rolleyes:. I need to stop procrastinating and make a decision on Phono Stage, since borrowing the FireBottle I really want valves in my life again. Then there's mono blocking Quad 405's...

[The Barbarian]

Have you decided on a replacement stylus yet Andr'e?



Aye im gonna go for one of those Jico styli when i get some spare cutter mi bruvver..

[DarrenHW]

Nice one, would be interested in your thoughts when you have it.

[Marco]

I look forward to it although probably going to be the back end of April now, thanks to the unreliable brickie I was telling you about…


No worries, just gizza shout when it happens, and please keep me posted about the brickie, as we’re putting plans in place now to sell that house, so the wall has to be fixed ASAP.


The DL 103's firmly on the back burner too, as you know I've fancied one for a while but I have other priorities. I bought the SEAS tweeters Ken had in his 66's from him so I really want to turn my attention back to the 44's next, one pair old skool the other pair new ready for a mini bake-off and eventually get them finished :rolleyes:. I need to stop procrastinating and make a decision on Phono Stage, since borrowing the FireBottle I really want valves in my life again. Then there's mono blocking Quad 405's...

The 103 would undoubtedly be your kind of cartridge, and it can work superbly well on the Haddy. You just need some added mass at the headshell end, and the ‘old nail’ will sing like a canary! The BEST valve phono stages, IMO, are where vinyl is at - no question - so you really do need to sort out your phono stage. Have you heard the Firebottle 2 yet, or are you down on the list to do so?

The 405s sound stunning, monoblocked and suitably fettled, as I had the pleasure recently of hearing Ian Walker’s, not only in his system, but in mine, in comparison with the Copper amp. The Quads, thus modified (by Duncan), are undoubtedly amongst the finest SS amps I’ve heard, so you’ve got some fun ahead there! ;)

Btw, if you fancy hearing Ian's modded (monoblocked) 405s sometime, with his Tannoy Canterburys, just let me know and I’ll take you along :cool:

Marco.

[Si74]

re counterweights etc. Johhny at Audioorigami has made me numerous counterweights/additional weights for various arms
at very reasonable prices. Always top workmanship and good advice.
He'd be the man to ask about arm tubes and damping.

[DarrenHW]

Over the last few weeks I've tried a few different arm tubes using an AT440MLa as a test cart:

1/4" 20 SWG 316 Stainless Steel - I'd borrowed a pretty crappy pair of vernier calipers which weren't accurate enough to give a wall reading. 20 SWG seemed to be the closest from the reading I was getting. When the tube arrived it was obviously a thicker wall than the original Al tube meaning through process of elimination the original tube was 22 SWG. I tried it anyway, weighing in at a whopping ~27g (original Al ~7g) Paul's concerns overs altering the effective mass were confirmed, all the life was sucked out of the music and bass was virtually non-existent. On the plus side the reduction in tracking error due to correcting the headshell offset was substantial. Unsurprisingly a musically disappointing experiment for the AT440MLa, but perhaps a suitable arm to try a DL 103?

1/4" 22 SWG 316 Stainless Steel - This confirmed the issues with the 20 SWG were due to mass the lighter (~21g) 22 SWG brought a lot more life to the music but bass was still not on par with the original Al tube. What this did achieve however was a very tight, sharp image with more depth and space than I'd experienced with the Al tube. I really like what this tube does but still too heavy for the AT440MLa.

1/4" 22 SWG HE30TF Alloy Tube - Now were getting somewhere! Weighing in at ~7g (I only have kitchen scales so don't have accurate figures) the mass is a good match for the AT440MLa. Bass is now back (as much as the AT440MLa does bass) and tracking errors reduced but the image isn't as tight as the 20 SWG 316.

I'm speculating (and would appreciate any input) that the better image with the 316 is due to the increased rigidity / stiffness of the 316 over the HE30TF? I will try (crudely) adding mass to the HE30TF to see if the AT440MLa wants to see a little more mass to get it in the butter zone, I'll also hit it with a coat of paint or possibly lacquer, I think I read somewhere that the paint on a RB300 provides dampening?

All in all a good learning experince which I'm thoroughly enjoying. I'll play around with the HE30TF tube this weekend, see what I can get out of it and try and establish the optimum mass for the AT440MLa as I think the next stage will be Grade 9 Titanium tube. If anyone has an views on using Titanium for an arm tube I'd be interested in hearing them, Titanium doesn't seem to be used much but I think it could be the perfect balance of mass and rigidity for the Hadcock. If anyone know's where I could buy 1/4" tube by the 12" I'd be grateful otherwise I'll have to commit to either 24" or 36" (dependent on wall thickness) which makes for quite an expensive experiment.

[DarrenHW]

For the past few weeks I've been fagging around with the Al tube with the M95HE installed. I've tried applying heat shrink which sucked all the life out of it, stuffing with cotton wool which didn't really do anything and applying a fibre glass sleeve (from an arrow shaft I bought at a carboot for £1) which was the worst combination I've tried. I thought this was down to too much effective mass. Eventually I switched back to the 22 SWG 316 as I didn't have a clear memory of how it sounded and ultimately resigned myself to having to order Titanium tube to get the result I wanted.

I've been reading up all I can on the Hadcock to try and reach a conclusion (or rather convince myself the Ti would be worth the £90 gamble) on tube material and came across a thread where using the dampening silicone was not recommended if using a MM cart. I'd never tried the Hadcock without the silicone as I thought it was integral to it's design, as I had nothing to lose I cleaned out the silicone and replaced the arm, :wow:. The issue I had with bass from the 316 was gone, the sparkle and focus were still there now with bass that was on par (as far as I can remember) with the Al.

To say I'm happy with this result is an understatement, I had wondered why the the Hadcock / Shure combo was so highly regarded and now realise it was only user error holding things back :doh:. The Ti is still a tempting proposition but right now I'm more than happy to give the 316 some air time, the tube cost £4.95 delivered and I think it's the best SPP mod I've ever performed. Instead of ordering the Ti I've ordered the XTC Counter Weight as with the additional weight of the 316 even with added mass the original counter weight is literally hanging out the back of the short stub. A rewarding morning fagging about with the Hadcock, which more than offsets my irritation of wasting hours due to a bit of misplaced gloop!

[DarrenHW]

Exact Audio XTC Counter Weight installed:

http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u606/drtwas/IMG_5170_zpsc88v9xve.jpg (http://s1324.photobucket.com/user/drtwas/media/IMG_5170_zpsc88v9xve.jpg.html)

This was the only real option I could see to balance out the heavier 316 tube. I have an early GH228 with the smaller ~85g (including auxiliary weight) counter weight, the GH242 I believe came with a ~100g counter weight with ~20g auxiliary weight. Sourcing one of these is difficult enough and the stub's are different so I'd have had to fit a new stub as well, the XTC weight seemed like the best choice.

http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u606/drtwas/IMG_5174_zpsrzzohpv6.jpg (http://s1324.photobucket.com/user/drtwas/media/IMG_5174_zpsrzzohpv6.jpg.html)

It was a doddle to fit and far easier to setup than the stock counter weight due to the grub screws, I'm waiting for permission from Exact Audio to go into any more detail. I'd had to jerry rig the stock counter weight so can't offer a fair comparison between the two but the XTC has really brought everything into focus, there's now more detail, less distortion and a massively improved stereo image, thanks mostly I think to how much easier it is to set azimuth and bias. It's still early days yet, I only got to listen for about a hour last night before falling asleep (April was a very busy month for me) so I'm hoping I can keep my eyes open for a little longer this evening :).

[Marco]

Like it, Darren! Not sure if your VTA is quite spot on, though.....

Marco.

[DarrenHW]

No, probably not, still playing with it, had hoped to start dialing it in last night. According to the instructions I'm also further along the outrigger than I should be for bias but that's where it sounds like it should be, I think maybe the make shift bias weights are too light? Still lots to address, hopefully I can keep the Sand Man at bay long enough to have a fiddle tonight.

[Darren]

.

[kcc123]

The Hadcock 228 looks much better with the XTC counterweight than the original and I think I would get one for mine.

[DarrenHW]

Hi King, Funny enough the only thing common to other threads talking about the CW is someone saying that they don't like the way it looks. Whilst it's not a sympathetic upgrade (I don't think it looks original to the arm) I too think it's a nice look and feel it compliments the utilitarian build of the Hadcock. After spending a bit more time with it last night I'm really loving how easy it makes adjustment and it's brought the Hadcock on in leaps and bounds. Everything's tracking so well now, I've not had an arm / cart combo (not that I've had that many arms / carts) that tracks like this, the reduction in distortion and increased detail retrieval is very surprising, I've still got some work to do dialing the arm in, but I think it's getting close now.

The counter weight comes with different stub fittings depending on the arm and in different weights (at least 3 that I know of) depending on the tube and cart you have, provide Exact with that info and they calculate the best weight for you. Have you replaced the arm tube in your 228?

[kcc123]

Hi Darren,

I haven’t done anything to the arm tube yet but after reading your post I might have a go some time soon as it is a cheap upgrade with a big improvement in sound. The only mod I have done is actually a complete rewire of the Hadcock with a continuous run of pure silver wiring from the headshell tags to the Eichmann silver bullet plugs. The improvement is substantial and so was the cost