DL103SA VS. SL1200: How I won the battle and lived happy (for a while)

Quote:

---

Marco, it seems to me the Jelco hasn't any graduate reference on the pillar for the VTA (I mean same printed or engraved notch), so how do you know the exact VTA you're setting (or re-setting)? are you using a bubble level or your own eyes?

---

The pillar, when loosened, simply goes up and down. I then nip it up when (yes, by eye) the arm looks bang on level with the record surface. Final adjustment though is always by ear, where I will then fiddle around for sometime making minute adjustments, before getting the VTA spot on, sonically, using various test records.

There's not much point in having engraved notches on the arm pillar, or whatever, if the 'sweet spot', for optimal VTA, falls somewhere in between! ;)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

The pillar, when loosened, simply goes up and down. I then nip it up when (yes, by eye) the arm looks bang on level with the record surface. Final adjustment though is always by ear, where I will then fiddle around for sometime making minute adjustments, before getting the VTA spot on, sonically, using various test records.

There's not much point in having engraved notches on the arm pillar, or whatever, if the 'sweet spot' for VTA, where the sound clicks into place, falls somewhere in between! ;)

Marco.

---

Ok Marco, I agree.
Anyway a VTA adjuster can be added at a later time (just read the Ralph's thread about VTAF and about the issue of coupling/decoupling the tonearm).

Back to topic, the Jelco SA 750 has a 20 GR mass. So you didn't to add any additional weight to the Jelco headshel, din't you?

Last Q: the Jelco above on the SL 1200 needs the straight or the 90 degrees connector?

Thank you

Quote:

---

Back to topic, the Jelco SA 750 has a 20 GR mass. So you didn't to add any additional weight to the Jelco headshel, din't you?

---

I know on Dave C's site it states that the effective mass for the SA 750 is 20g, but with respect to Dave, I think he's miscalculated it. It's more like 14 or 15g, the same as the Ortofon TA-100 (which is near identical to the SA 750) :)

I don't use the Jelco headshell when I'm using the 103, as it's too light - that's where the 17.5g Ortofon LH-9000 comes in:


http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1674/hslh9000.png

Quote:

---

Last Q: the Jelco above on the SL 1200 needs the straight or the 90 degrees connector?

---

It's been a while since I looked under there, but I'm pretty sure it's the 90° one.

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

I know on Dave C's site it states the effective mass for the SA 750 is 20g, but with respect to Dave, I think he's miscalculated it. It's more like 14 or 15g, the same as the Ortofon TA-100 (which is near identical to the SA 750) :)

I don't use the Jelco headshell when I'm using the 103, as it's too light - that's where the 17.5g Ortofon LH-9000 comes in:

---

I get the 20 gr from here (look down at comments section)
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/jelco/sa-750d.shtml

Anyway, 5 GR more on headshell lower the FR from 9.3 to 8.7, so the FR it's still into the suggested range.


http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/1674/hslh9000.png

Always the best for you, Marco :eyebrows:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

It's been a while since I looked under there, but I'm pretty sure it's the 90° one.

Marco.

---

Ok, thanks

'Scuse me for wading in here, but I should say that IMO, the 309 is a very stable customer and the 103 shouldn't be a problem tbh.

The 304 is rather more highly compliant and prefers lighter SME's (M2-9) or Rega RB series tonearms (probably the lighter Jelco as well). It's a bit expensive now though for what's on offer and I think a Sumiko BPS, high output mc or not, might comfortably see it off...

It wouldn't hurt to ask SME if they might make a high-mass headshell for the 309, together with a heavier counterweight should one be needed. My own view is that a 103SA would probably be fine in the 309 just as it is, because the tonearm is so well behaved when compared to all the s shaped detachable types, which probably need all the extra mass to tune the resonances down as far as possible - the 103 series isn't actually hugely low in compliance when measured, whetever the subjective results may suggest..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gdg

Marco, it seems to me the Jelco hasn't any graduate reference on the pillar for the VTA (I mean same printed or engraved notch), so how do you know the exact VTA you're setting (or re-setting)? are you using a bubble level or your own eyes?

Shuggie, this seems to be interesting stuff. Any picture or any past thread about that ?

Mike New proposed his own solution, but it's complicated to me send some pieces of my TT to him to modifying them.

Thank you


EDIT: never mind Shuggie, I found it: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...?t=5633&page=1

---

That VTAF didn't quite work out for me - perhaps because a MC cartridge needs a more direct energy connection between the arm and chassis. I shall revisit it sometime to check, though as it's some time since I last used it.

In theory, adjusting the VTA on the Jelco is easy, and the up and down bit is easy. If you use a headshell spirit level, you'll very soon see the azimuth errors that result from the arm pillar not being truly vertical. My new collar should solve that - it's inspired by the Linn Ittok collar, which although too big, does nevertheless secure the Jelco's arm pillar properly vertical, although the mounting distance is then wrong if used with a Linn armboard.

It will be a while before my modified Jelco mounting collar is ready. If it works out, then having additional ones made up (in aircraft grade aluminium) will be straightforward, but I don't know what the cost might be. If there is interest here, I'll post updates and pictures as I am able to do so.

Quote:

---

I get the 20 gr from here (look down at comments section)

---

I'm really not sure that figure is accurate, but anyway......

Quote:

---

Always the best for you, Marco

---

Well if you're going to do a job, do it right! ;)

Hi Dave,

I cannot dispute what you're saying, technically, about the 309 but let's just say that, despite this, instinct from extensive experience of using the 103 suggests it's not likely to be the best match. The 103 really does need plenty of mass to perform optimally, I feel, in any circumstances.

If someone wants to try it on a 309, though, I don't mind being proven wrong!!

However, I like the idea of SME making a bespoke headshell - that would definitely work! :)

Marco.

Hi Hugo,

Quote:

---

It will be a while before my modified Jelco mounting collar is ready. If it works out, then having additional ones made up (in aircraft grade aluminium) will be straightforward, but I don't know what the cost might be. If there is interest here, I'll post updates and pictures as I am able to do so.

---

Please do, as I for one would be very interested in this. If it works well, we'll do a proper feature of it on the forum, which I'm sure will result in a few sales :)

Marco.