what makes a good headshell?

[karma67]

as above,its all rather new to me as ive always ended up with a fixed one on my tonearms.
my pioneer uses detachable one,they say this about it,
A magnesium alloy which is not only lightweight but also displays sufficient rigidity and internal loss is used for the headshell in order to eliminate resonance.

so chaps do i need to look elsewhere or is this classed as good? i'll be buggered if i know lol.

[Bigman80]

as above,its all rather new to me as ive always ended up with a fixed one on my tonearms.
my pioneer uses detachable one,they say this about it,
A magnesium alloy which is not only lightweight but also displays sufficient rigidity and internal loss is used for the headshell in order to eliminate resonance.

so chaps do i need to look elsewhere or is this classed as good? i'll be buggered if i know lol.There's gonna be huge opinion on this but my experience is Magnesium beats, Alu & Wood. I haven't tried any "High end" head shells but I probably won't either.

[vintagesteve]

Rigidity and low mass are the two main goals of a headshell in general. Most MC cartridges are less desirous of low mass, in which case the emphasis can be rigidity. Conversely, a MM cartridge such as a Shure V15 tracked at say one gram will be looking for low mass as it's prime need.

[RobbieGong]

What makes a good headshell - Depends on how much you want from it.........

For me:

Anti resonant
Rigidity
Weight (It should suit your application / requirement in terms of compliance / resonance
Adjustment - some dont have any, little or plenty - I know which I choose to have and go for ;)

Magnesium is my prefered choice in terms of material coupled with the above :)

[karma67]

my experience is Magnesium beats, Alu & Wood. I haven't tried any "High end" head shells but I probably won't either.




Magnesium is my prefered choice in terms of material coupled with the above :)

sweet as,so far. it would seem im in good company :cool:

[Bigman80]

[emoji106]
sweet as,so far. it would seem im in good company :cool:

[paulf-2007]

Detachable headshell = a stable of carts at your disposal

[karma67]

tell me about it,ive already got 2 on their way to me lol

[Wakefield Turntables]

Tonearm mass is very important. But like the other guys I prefer Magnesium. It ticks all the boxes.

[montesquieu]

Tonearm mass is very important. But like the other guys I prefer Magnesium. It ticks all the boxes.

It's all about cartridge compliance and overall mass. All but the cheapest most rubbishy headshells are sufficiently rigid. As stated above if you want to run a Shure V15 on a low mass arm then you might as well keep the theme going with a featherweight headshell. I perfer low compliance cartridges and heavy arms and my favourite headshells are the Fidelity Research FR-S3, and the Ikeda IS-2 - the main reason being is that both are around 20g, very rigid, adjustable (in the S3 the cartridge bolts into a sled, in the Ikeda, cartridge position, headshell length and azumuth are all adjustable) and it's then easy to get to a SPU-standard 32g with your typical 10g cartridge (and we weight or two if needed).

I don't think material matters very much, if at all, except in its contribution to overall mass.

Funnily enough for all my love of SPUs I've never been convinced that the SPU headshell is necessarily an ideal tool for getting the best out of the cartridges - they can can have resonance issues and my Royal N usually sounds best in a standard headshell (the F3 in particular does a great job with it). There are different in different eras so they aren't all the same .. they do look cool though which has got to be part of the equation however much we deny it.

https://i.imgur.com/Nm710Rc.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/0iZi22J.jpg

[Magna Audio]

If you are fitting a SPU Royal N to one then HEAVY is what makes it good - the other things mentioned as well of course.

[YNWaN]

As far as I am concerned, a good head shell is not removable from the arm tube - not in the manner of the old SME system anyway. The design of removable head shells is rendered somewhat moot by the relatively lossy connection used at the arm tubs junction.

[WESTLOWER]

The design of removable head shells is rendered somewhat moot by the relatively lossy connection used at the arm tubs junction.
and just how lossy would that coupling be?

[walpurgis]

As far as I am concerned, a good head shell is not removable from the arm tube - not in the manner of the old SME system anyway. The design of removable head shells is rendered somewhat moot by the relatively lossy connection used at the arm tubs junction.

I agree.

[struth]

Prefer wood personally

[montesquieu]

As far as I am concerned, a good head shell is not removable from the arm tube - not in the manner of the old SME system anyway. The design of removable head shells is rendered somewhat moot by the relatively lossy connection used at the arm tubs junction.

Totally disagree. The flexibility offered by a removable headshell - to easily use different cartridges for different applications (different eras of vinyl or even for different musical genres) - far, far outweighs any potential/theoretical benefit from a fixed headshell. Feel free to come round and see if any of my tonearms sound crap because of 'lossy' connectors.

Frankly I think this is yet another hifi old wives' tale - there are good arms and there are bad arms, and some in each category have removable headshells, and some don't.

[YNWaN]

A removable headshell is undoubtedly convenient - but that doesn't mean it is a good solution in sonic terms. Even SME abandoned the two pin bayonet system with the removable headshell of the M2 and 300 series. I think a removable headshell can be done well - just not in the way he headshells in this thread are implemented.

whether the headshell is removable is only one element of arm design - but, all things considered, it is my view that this is one compromise easily avoided.

-------

If I were to hear your system then I might feel it sounded good - but this could easily be despite the removable headshell - who knows how much better it could sound were it fixed.....

Alternatively, I may not like the sound at all and, similarly, this could have nothing to do with the removable headshell.

[struth]

Never had an issue with mine. So far.

[montesquieu]

A removable headshell is undoubtedly convenient - but that doesn't mean it is a good solution in sonic terms. Even SME abandoned the two pin bayonet system with the removable headshell of the M2 and 300 series. I think a removable headshell can be done well - just not in the way he headshells in this thread are implemented.

whether the headshell is removable is only one element of arm design - but, all things considered, it is my view that this is one compromise easily avoided.

-------

If I were to hear your system then I might feel it sounded good - but this could easily be despite the removable headshell - who knows how much better it could sound were it fixed.....

Alternatively, I may not like the sound at all and, similarly, this could have nothing to do with the removable headshell.

SME haven't abandoned it it's currently used on several of their arms.

Where's the evidence that the sound is compromised? Some of the best arms in the world have a removable headshell. (And some of them don't).

Your opinion has no evidence behind it.

[RobbieGong]

Totally disagree. The flexibility offered by a removable headshell - to easily use different cartridges for different applications (different eras of vinyl or even for different musical genres) - far, far outweighs any potential/theoretical benefit from a fixed headshell. Feel free to come round and see if any of my tonearms sound crap because of 'lossy' connectors.

Frankly I think this is yet another hifi old wives' tale - there are good arms and there are bad arms, and some in each category have removable headshells, and some don't.

Have to agree

[Bigman80]

The AT1010 uses a chuck type attachment and it's very very secure. It makes solid contact between pins. It's the best arm I've owned (and about to get better) regardless of headshell.

Jamie, has just bought a Pioneer arm with a removable headshell and it's not come off his TT either, replacing a Zeta and an Alphasson. Both of those had been rewired too!

Its not the headshell being attached or one piece arm/headshell that matters. It's the damping properties, bearings and tonearm wire connections that matter. Get that right and your laughing. Soldered or pressure connection, hasn't made a blind bit of difference in my system. The arms limitations have been the biggest factor.

IMO.

[YNWaN]

SME haven't abandoned it it's currently used on several of their arms.

Where's the evidence that the sound is compromised? Some of the best arms in the world have a removable headshell. (And some of them don't).

Your opinion has no evidence behind it.

If you look at the SME range, those aimed at highest performance either have a fixed headshell or a much more mechanically inert design. Look, you clearly want to believe a different point of view so I won't waste further time. My opinion has plenty of evidence behind it in the sense that adding a mechanical joint at the headshell impacts upon the transference of vibration - how much you consider this an issue is up to you but don't pretend it doesn't exist!

[Beobloke]

I think the most important thing to consider regarding a headshell, is whether it looks nice or not.

[RobbieGong]

I think the most important thing to consider regarding a headshell, is whether it looks nice or not.

:D

[montesquieu]

If you look at the SME range, those aimed at highest performance either have a fixed headshell or a much more mechanically inert design. Look, you clearly want to believe a different point of view so I won't waste further time. My opinion has plenty of evidence behind it in the sense that adding a mechanical joint at the headshell impacts upon the transference of vibration - how much you consider this an issue is up to you but don't pretend it doesn't exist!

Highest performance? I'd take either of my Ikedas or my AT-1503 over an SME V any day of the week. Likewise something like a Glanz.

Can you point to the evidence please if there's plenty of it. All I've read so far is opinion.




Its not the headshell being attached or one piece arm/headshell that matters. It's the damping properties, bearings and tonearm wire connections that matter. Get that right and your laughing. Soldered or pressure connection, hasn't made a blind bit of difference in my system. The arms limitations have been the biggest factor.




Quite.

[Ammonite Audio]

The audiophile obsessive in me tends to dwell on the ‘unnecessary joint’ theory that Mark outlines above, but in my experience and practice no tonearm is really defined by whether it has a fixed or removable headshell. There is much more to a good sounding tonearm than just this one aspect. Ultimately, I have found, as Tom has, that the most enjoyable and musical sounding tonearms generally have removable headshells, and the added convenience that brings is icing on the cake. For someone who only ever uses one cartridge, swappable headshells might not matter much, but for those of us who listen to stereo and mono using different transducers, convenience is important.

As for what makes the the best headshell, the answer rather depends on mass and cartridge compliance. That said, there are clear differences in sonic character between light alloy, carbon fibre, wood etc, so mass aside, which type is best rather depends on the preferences of the listener. My current favourite is the Timestep ebony headshell, which is moderately heavy at 15g and has a lovely ‘organic’ and natural sound that I find quite alluring. On a practical level, I like multi-adjustable headshells like the Acoustical Systems Arche 5D, which is heavy at 18g and does have a lovely sound character but is ruinously expensive. I’m mulling over a design for a heavy-ish machined alloy headshell with generous cartridge mounting slots, as well as adjustable overhang and azimuth at the collet, to allow for any tonearm alignment oddities.

[walpurgis]

The pros and cons of removable headshells and fixed examples and one piece arms were researched. I remember the mags delving into this many years ago. No doubt the data is out there if anybody is interested enough (I'm not).

The usual SME/Universal headshell is retained by what is basically a spigot and socket arrangement. This is a reasonable compromise, but that does not alter the fact that this is exactly what it is. A compromise! There are better ways of doing things.

[struth]

on reflection i shouldnt have sold my Yamamoto ebony Headshell HS-1A ... that was a nice thing.

[anubisgrau]

headshells are redundant, use SPU or FR pickups ;)

[Barry]

headshells are redundant, use SPU or FR pickups ;)

Or use an EMT or any other 'integrated headshell ' cartridge design. :)

[Barry]

The pros and cons of removable headshells and fixed examples and one piece arms were researched. I remember the mags delving into this many years ago. No doubt the data is out there if anybody is interested enough (I'm not).

The usual SME/Universal headshell is retained by what is basically a spigot and socket arrangement. This is a reasonable compromise, but that does not alter the fact that this is exactly what it is. A compromise! There are better ways of doing things.

The spigoted helical draw-socket arrangement use on the great majority of detachable headshell pick up arms was developed by Ortofon, but is erroneously referred to as the SME design, is due to the adoption of the arrangement by SME (ARA designed the arm for his own use with Ortofon cartridges, which at that time were only available fitted into either the type A or type G headshells), and owing to the subsequent popularity of the arms this misconception continued.

What better ways are there? Is the Lenco headshell coupling any better, or do you think those arms employing a detachable arm wand, where the coupling is located near the bearings are significantly better?

[walpurgis]

But if the term Ortofon type headshell is used, most people would no doubt draw a blank. Say SME type and most will know what is meant. It's simply Hi-Fi speak common usage these days.

The ideal would be an integrated arm and cartridge (it has been done), but that would mean returning the whole thing to the manufacturer or agent for refurbishmment.

[Barry]

I think the correct nomenclature is the EIA headshell coupling.

So an integrated arm and cartridge? I think one would have to go back to the early '50s to see that; with the Farranti ribbon pick up, or maybe the Leak moving coil design.

Certainly the early manufacturers of pick up cartridges (Shure, Miniconic, B&O, EMI and Decca) made their own arms, presumably to optimise the whole assembly, with the consequence that the cartridges could only be used with the respective arms.

I'm not sure when the universal 1/2" spacing of the cartridge fixing points was introduced or by whom, but I suspect it was either Shure or Elac.

[anubisgrau]

seriously guys, what kind of talk is this? a good shell for 1 pickup may be crap for another. some pickups like heavy ones, hard coupling, rigidity, other completely opposite things. not everyone use heavy MC pickups that call for big mass, hard coupling. if this would be a main criteria, a stuff like vintage SME/shure shells would never happen.

[Barry]

I'm inclined to agree, and use a range of pickup arms covering an arm effective mass of 3g to 18g. The lower mass arms are fixed headshell designs, whereas the heavier arms have detachable headshells.

[guy]

Roksan Nima seems to be very well regarded and I believe that uses an acrylic headshell.

Is headshell material, on its own, the final arbiter of quality? after all cartridge bodies are made from quite a few different materials.