Quick Counterweight Query

[The Vinyl Adventure]

I got one of these heavy counterweights for my jelco, i was lead to belive it wouldn't be suitable with my oc9 ... As it turns out it does work, I can get up to over 2 grams if I wanted to .. As it seems I don't want to go over 2 grams this weight seems to work just fine ... Theoreticaly speaking is it better to use the lighter one or the heavier one closer to the pivot .. I read in a thread the other day something about this and asked a similar question ... But now I have noticed I can do this I can't find the thread!

[Stratmangler]

Heavier, close to the pivot.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Why zat den?

[Spectral Morn]

+1


Regards D S D L

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Why Is it better?

[Stratmangler]

It reduces the effective mass of the arm, and also lessens the mechanical inertia.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Why is that better... Sorry to be a child "why why why" etc... I'm just interested

[Stratmangler]

I thought the title of the thread was "Quick Counterweight Query";)

[Stratmangler]

You've got the quick answer.

[DSJR]

The above is generally accepted and tested wisdom, but there was a thread earlier which suggested otherwise in that gent's application.

As the OC9 ML doesn't need much over 1.5g IIRC (my old OC9 likes 1.6 - 1.7) I'd use the larger counterweight if I were you.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

My psycological trick to rope people in to answer my mundane question... Bah, I'm foiled!

[Stratmangler]

To expand further, the inverse square law applies in mechanics.
Therefore you reduce the mechanical inertia (tendency to not move) the nearer to the pivot point you can get it.

The arm can react more quickly to the squiggle of the groove, or more exactly the arm/cartridge can trace the groove more easily.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

And now I know!

[Stratmangler]

;)

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Mines on about 1.6 I'd guess dave... I dont have scales :)

[Stratmangler]

Mines on about 1.6 I'd guess dave... I dont have scales :)

Guess ?????:eek:

You need one of these young man http://www.britishaudio.co.uk/shure.html

[The Vinyl Adventure]

No, not just blind guess work, I balance it by eye, set the counterbalance to zero then use the weight scale on the counter balance.. I might be a bit plebby but I don't just wack it on any old how

[Ammonite Audio]

Having raised this very question myself here on AoS recently, I concluded that whatever works best in practice represents the correct answer. Ignore all of the science and decide for yourself. I find that a lighter weight hung out further on the back of the Jelco works better than a heavy one closer to the pivot. You may conclude otherwise, but you'll have a bit of harmless fun getting to the conclusion.

[Marco]

Shuggs is exactly right.

The bottom line is, the proof of the pudding is always in the listening, even if the results heard don't meet with 'scientific facts' or 'perceived wisdom' - all that goes out of the window if your ears tell you something else! :)

As for what Chris wrote earlier:


It reduces the effective mass of the arm, and also lessens the mechanical inertia.


Absolutely true, however the former is only of benefit to medium and high-compliance cartridges. It's a distinct disadvantage with low-compliance cartridges such as the DL-103, SPU or Shure M3D.

Marco.

[Stratmangler]

It reduces the effective mass of the arm, and also lessens the mechanical inertia.

I would have thought that the latter part would be beneficial regardless of the compliance of the cartridge.

[Marco]

It is Chris, most definitely, but with low-compliance cartridges, such as the DL-103, high-mass is all important, almost at the exclusion of anything else (within reason) :)

Marco.

[Stratmangler]

:mental:
Now you know why I think analogue is hard work :lolsign:

[Marco]

Lol! :eyebrows:

Thing is, all you have to do is play around with detachable headshells, high-mass and otherwise, with a DL-103 to hear how significant an impact they have on overall performance.......

Marco.