audiosignal
Active Member
I know in a perfect world, one would want both. But, if you can only have one, which one, and why? Most helpful would be actual A/B comparison on same table, but I'm open to hearing other things.
Low mass cart or low mass tone arm?
- Thread starter audiosignal
- Start date
audiosignal
Active Member
Sorry, should have been more specific. Low mass cart like in MC cart. Google MC cart if you don't know what it is.
Last edited:
malden
Addicted Member
Yes, I know what a Moving Coil CARTRIDGE is. I just never heard a CARTRIDGE referred to as "low mass".
Yes, I could have "googled" MC, but you could also have "googled" your question...
audiosignal
Active Member
Tiny thin coil has less mass/weight than magnet, fyi.
beatcomber
AK Member
The mass of the cart is not as relevant as the compliance of the cantilever and the suitability of the tonearm.
My modded AR has a medium mass arm and a very high compliance Grado cartridge, and my TD-124 has a high-mass Jelco arm and low compliance DL-103 cart; both sound spectacularly good.
My modded AR has a medium mass arm and a very high compliance Grado cartridge, and my TD-124 has a high-mass Jelco arm and low compliance DL-103 cart; both sound spectacularly good.
Blue Shadow
Waiting for Vintage Gear from this century
Mass of a cartridge is really only relevant when determining if the arm will balance the mass and for the ultra high compliance cartridges, the ability for that mass to be installed on an arm and keep the performance (resonance frequency) in the ideal range.
But if you are looking for the moving mass of the stylus assembly, I like the moving coil sound.
But if you are looking for the moving mass of the stylus assembly, I like the moving coil sound.
MCM_Fan
AK Subscriber
You seem to be confusing low mass with low compliance. They are two very different things. Most MC cartridges are low compliance, not low mass. This actually makes them (generally) a good match for high mass arms.
Low mass arms are a better match (in general) for high compliance MM cartridges. But it all depends on the cartridge. Not all MM cartridges are high compliance.
Low mass arms are a better match (in general) for high compliance MM cartridges. But it all depends on the cartridge. Not all MM cartridges are high compliance.
marcmorin
RIP 1953-2020
.........so the rumor goes
You terminology is off as to what you are trying to ask. Until more knowledge is gained I would stick with a common middle mass arm and middle compliance cartridge. There is far far more choices out there for these components.
mjw21a
Super Member
Agreed. A medium mass arm will allow both. In a perfect world you'd have two tonearms so you can run whichever cartridge you want
I'm getting a plinth made specifically for this purpose so I can run my Koetsu Rosewood on one arm and Grace F8L on the other. I actually prefer the F8L to my F9E with SoundSmith Ruby stylus.
I'd back up and start over if I were you, Audiosignal. You're asserting knowledge you don't have. And adding "fyi" is just condescending. Even smart people avoid condescencion — if they're really smart. Your statement "Tiny thin coil has less mass/weight than magnet, fyi" may be correct if solely confined to the "tiny, thin coil", but has no bearing on the compliance of the suspension or the mass of the cartridge as a whole — and MCs also contain magnets, often big heavy ones. Fyi.
KentTeffeteller
Gimpus Stereophilus!
Matched tonearm and cartridge compliance and mass wise is best. Medium mass today is most popular. And has the most options available in cartridges.
Kent and Mjw are right — they usually are, it's one of their annoying habits. Medium-mass is the "happy medium" that can partner well with most cartridges, whatever mass they require. And such an arm can be "tuned" to a large degree, if it uses detachable headshells, by using different mass h'shells to suit high- or low-compliance cartridges (my h'shells range from 6g to 20g; quite a range in mass). Further, because they're the most popular, they offer the widest range of choices and the widest range of prices, from $200 to $10,000.
I use a medium-mass arm with high-compliance MM/MI carts such as Grace, Empire, Shure, and low-compliance MC carts such as Dynavector, Fidelity Research, Lyra — and they all sound great mounted in an appropriate headshell. Some arms offer fluid damping, and there are other tweaks to tune the arm to suit the cartridge.
I'm not sure how big the magnet is in my AT OC9/II but it will suck the cart right down on the plate of the digital scale I have - none of my MM carts have done that. I have to use the Shure scale with it. The OC9 also weighs 1.5g more than the MM AT440MLa.
Need a new scale.
as: The answers would depend pretty much on the contexts or respectively definitions. For example, a "low mass arm" could either be always good for normal hifi stereo use or only really desirable for hifi stereo carts with high to very high compliance, depending on whether you mean "low mass" in contrast to a typical phonograph/gramophone arm or in the sense of a hifi arm with an effective mass of ca. 5 to 10 g.
Similarly, you'd also have to define your "low mass cartridge" more precisely. From your further posts it would appear that you're actually referring to low ETM (equivalent/effective tip mass), but even then one still wouldn't quite know, what you'd associate with a low ETM: Less than 0.7 mg? Less than 0.5 mg? Less than 0.3 mg? Even less?
And, as Marc already hinted to above, in context of ETM you'd better be aware, that it's not exactly true that MCs would have a general advantage in that regard. That's rather what the marketing would like you to believe - but in fact it would depend very much on the actual implementations - see also Flavio's assembled list over there: https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22894&p=251140 Or in other words: That MCs would have an advantage in ETM would only be true insofar, as MCs generally tend to start at a higher needle quality level (although at least some manufacturers also used to offer MCs with entry-level class needles, but not so many of these would really become popular...) - so that the number of MC models with really low ETM would be higher than the number of MM and MI models with really low ETM. Whereas regarding the number of actually sold exemplars I'd expect the MMs and MIs with really low tip mass to catch up pretty considerably, maybe even up to about a tie - although time would seem to rather work in favour of MCs there. However, all of that would also depend quite a bit on where one would put the limit for really low tip mass, as 0.4 mg max. should still apply to quite a few current middle to high class MMs and MIs or respectively the needles for these, whereas 0.2 mg max. would very significatly reduce the number of MM and MI candidates...
Well, and regarding low mass cartridges in the sense of cartridges weighing less than ca. 4 g max., these can be of advantage in high to very high compliance variants in combination with light to very light arms with very low bearing friction for very good tracking even in combination with rather warped records. Otherwise it will depend on the circumstances. For example, quite a few medium-heavy arms are rather likely to expect a minimum cartridge weight of at least roundabout 5 g in combination with the standard headshell, so that one might need to install an additional weight plate for proper balancing in combination with lighter carts (or alternatively get a lighter counterweight or heavier headshell variant, if available) - in which case going for a lighter cartridge would appear rather useless...
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
Similarly, you'd also have to define your "low mass cartridge" more precisely. From your further posts it would appear that you're actually referring to low ETM (equivalent/effective tip mass), but even then one still wouldn't quite know, what you'd associate with a low ETM: Less than 0.7 mg? Less than 0.5 mg? Less than 0.3 mg? Even less?
And, as Marc already hinted to above, in context of ETM you'd better be aware, that it's not exactly true that MCs would have a general advantage in that regard. That's rather what the marketing would like you to believe - but in fact it would depend very much on the actual implementations - see also Flavio's assembled list over there: https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22894&p=251140 Or in other words: That MCs would have an advantage in ETM would only be true insofar, as MCs generally tend to start at a higher needle quality level (although at least some manufacturers also used to offer MCs with entry-level class needles, but not so many of these would really become popular...) - so that the number of MC models with really low ETM would be higher than the number of MM and MI models with really low ETM. Whereas regarding the number of actually sold exemplars I'd expect the MMs and MIs with really low tip mass to catch up pretty considerably, maybe even up to about a tie - although time would seem to rather work in favour of MCs there. However, all of that would also depend quite a bit on where one would put the limit for really low tip mass, as 0.4 mg max. should still apply to quite a few current middle to high class MMs and MIs or respectively the needles for these, whereas 0.2 mg max. would very significatly reduce the number of MM and MI candidates...
Well, and regarding low mass cartridges in the sense of cartridges weighing less than ca. 4 g max., these can be of advantage in high to very high compliance variants in combination with light to very light arms with very low bearing friction for very good tracking even in combination with rather warped records. Otherwise it will depend on the circumstances. For example, quite a few medium-heavy arms are rather likely to expect a minimum cartridge weight of at least roundabout 5 g in combination with the standard headshell, so that one might need to install an additional weight plate for proper balancing in combination with lighter carts (or alternatively get a lighter counterweight or heavier headshell variant, if available) - in which case going for a lighter cartridge would appear rather useless...
Greetings from Munich!
Manfred / lini
