Denon 103M + Orsonic headshell porn

[Barry]

Most of my pick-up arms have a detachable headshell, as I like to experiment with different cartridges. The mechanical resonance spectrum of an arm with a fixed headshell can be shown to present fewer resonances compared with a nominally identical arm offering a detached headshell option (for example the SME 3009 FH vs. the 3009/S2), but like you I would argue that an arm with a well designed bayonet headshell coupling can 'sound' equally as good as a fixed headshell design.

[Marco]

Any arm offering a detachable headshell introduces an extra mechanical junction or interface, and hence can compromises rigidity and allow additional resonances to occur. The trade-off is mechanical rigidity and integrity for convenience.

Yes, but it's not quite as simple as that: you have to ensure that you're comparing like with like. Undoubtedly, if one were comparing two arms (fitted with the same cartridge), otherwise identical but for one having a detachable headshell, it's almost certain that the one with a fixed headshell would sound better, for the reasons you describe.

However, if one were comparing, say a Jelco SA-750 (with detachable headshell), and a Rega RB300 (with a fixed headshell), the former *could* produce superior performance simply because, detachable headshell aside, it could be overall the better arm, as let's not forget that there's rather more to the design of a good tonearm than simply the headshell arrangement - bearings for one thing...

Also, you have to consider that some cartridges, notably low-compliance ones, such as the Denon DL-103, chuck a lot of energy into the arm, and so in that scenario, a 'lossy fixing', such as a detachable headshell, can actually be beneficial.

That's one of the reasons, convenience aside, why pretty much every Japanese arm made made has a detachable headshell.

Yes, the Japs tend to be types who own many different cartridges, and so that need is facilitated by using arms with detachable headshells, but they also know that, in certain applications (especially as they also tend to be fans of low-compliance cartridges), that 'lossy fixing' can be a good thing.

Another example in hi-fi of not everything simply being 'black or white'

Marco.

[Barry]

Yes, but it's not quite as simple as that: you have to compare like with like. Undoubtedly, if one were comparing two arms (fitted with the same cartridge), otherwise identical but for one having a detachable headshell, it's almost certain that the one with a fixed headshell would sound better, for the reasons you describe.

However, if one were comparing, say a Jelco SA-750 (with detachable headshell), and a Rega RB300 (with a fixed headshell), the former *could* produce superior performance simply because, detachable headshell aside, it could be overall the better arm, as let's not forget that there's rather more to the design of a good tonearm than simply the headshell arrangement - bearings for one thing...

Also, you have to consider that some cartridges, notably low-compliance ones, such as the Denon DL-103, chuck a lot of energy into the arm, and so in that scenario, a 'lossy fixing', such as a detachable headshell, can actually be beneficial.

That's one of the reasons, convenience aside, why pretty much every Japanese arm made has a detachable headshell.

Yes, the Japs tend to be types who own many different cartridges, and so that need is facilitated by using arms with detachable headshells, but they also know that, in certain applications (especially as they also tend to be fans of low-compliance cartridges), that 'lossy fixing' can be a good thing!

Marco.

It depends how the loss is achieved. With Decca cartridges the loss can be achieved through the slightly compliant cartridge mounting bracket used, for some others a compliant foam rubber 'isolator' is used. However the mechanical headshell-to-arm coupling may not be lossy - in fact it might have the opposite effect: the junction could present an mechanical impedance mismatch, so excess energy is reflected back to the cartridge and affect the sound.

There is another way in which excess energy can be dealt with. This is to use a rigid arm that allows the energy to ducted down the arm tube and through the bearings, where it is then dissipated in the mass of the arm base and turntable chassis. For the latter to work well, arm bearing quality is of the utmost importance.

[RobbieGong]

Interesting stuff .....

[Marco]

Indeed, Barry - all of which proves that you need to focus on things collectively, rather than JUST individually, when assessing the efficacy of tonearms, or indeed pretty much anything else in audio.

Quite simply, there is no 'one size fits all' answer to these things

Marco.

[Wakefield Turntables]

I'll comment more on this later, I have a 2 year old to look after.

[Barry]

Indeed, Barry - all of which proves that you need to focus on things collectively, rather than JUST individually, when assessing the efficacy of tonearms, or indeed pretty much anything else in audio.

Quite simply, there is no 'one size fits all' answer to these things

Marco.

I never said there was. All I was saying was that when comparing like with like (and I cited the fixed hadshell and detachable headshell version of the SME 3009 arm), the detachable headshell version will display more mechanical resonances than the fixed headshell version. Depending on the frequency of the resonances, their amplitude and their width (Q-factor), they may or may not have an impact on the sound.

Even if the mechanical interface is done up infinitely tight, there will still be an impedance mismatch if the interface is between different materials. I wouldn't say one should worry about the additional interfaces present with the Orsonic headshell, but it's worth bearing in mind if low compliance cartridges are used, which as you correctly state, can put out a lot of excess energy.

I could liken the effect to that of minimising the number of contacts in the mains supply (something which you are keen to pursue), but the analogy would be false.

[Marco]

I never said there was.

I know you didn't. I was simply highlighting the fact that one must often look beyond the 'obvious', to find out why stuff works or it doesn't, and that audio rarely operates on 'black or white' rules - and both of what you and I have written here on the matter proves that point

Marco.

[Wakefield Turntables]

I used to get really strung out about the whole headshell argument. Now I don't give a shit. It's the music which matters. If I fancy buying a Orsonic headshell and a £2K cartridge to go on the end of it, I will simply open the wallet and pay. I'm now more into buying bits of kit trying things out, finding out what sounds good, just trying different Thimgs for the fun of it. Life is too short worrying about getting maximum efficieny out of a cart or max SPPV. Just enjoy your kit and play music.

[Clive197]

As I said changing cartridges (I have 3) on my OL arm is a bit of a faff. I have often thought of getting a different arm and very nearly bought an Ortofon model which I believe is made by Jelco. I decided to stay with the OL as I actually like the idea of the fixed headshell and the continuous phono wires that go from headshell to amp without a join. I think that the SQ from that works well for me, so have made the decision to suffer the lack of convenience and ability to change the resonant frequency of an arm by headshell weight.
There is no right or wrong about this discussion, just each ones own take on the matter.