Chart showing cartridge-tonearm compatibility

IF you clicked on this expecting a handy-dandy chart that shows exactly which cartridges are appropriate to which tonearms, sorry, it isn't here. But if you did, it also means this thread may not be entirely in vain, so please read on, anyway...

I was thinking (always a dangerous thing!) about how many times I've seen people posting things like, "I just got XYZ tonearm (or TT, which in this context usually amounts to the same question). What would be a good cartridge to use with it?" These questions come up REGULARLY.

Usually, the answer is something like, "That is a medium-mass tonearm, and will work with a wide variety of cartridges" OR "that is a low-mass tonearm, so you'll need a high-compliance cartridge" OR "That is a a high-mass tonearm, so you'll need a low-compliance cartridge."

Then the question often comes, "Well, specifically, which cartridges are low-/medium-/high-compliance, and suitable for this tonearm?

Then will come some specific recommendations, based on whatever experience member A or B has had with whatever relevant (or sometimes not-so-relevant) cartridge and/or tonearm. Usually the advice is good, but occasionally it seems mistaken or "borderline".

WHY DON'T WE compile a table, a spreadsheet of sorts, listing the most commonly-encountered tonearms and cartridges (it can expand over time to include less-common ones, as needed), with the cartridges listed down the side under categories:

I. Low-Compliance
Cartridge A
Cartridge B
Cartrige C
...

II. Medium Compliance
Cartridge A
Cartridge B
...

III. High Compliance
Cartridge A
Cartridge B
...

And then, across the top, have a column for any measurements that quantify compliance in the first column [Just how is compliance quantified, anyway? :headscrat], and specific tonearms across the top after that. [Layout point: to save space, tonearm names can be written vertically.] A code could be used where rows and columns intersect, to indicate whether a particular cartridge was wholly unsuited, moderately or barely suited, or very well-suited for use with a particular tonearm. Maybe A, B and C or blank, small x, large X or something like that, could indicate these things. [Red, white and green "traffic lights" would be good, but then the thing couldn't be used in a B/W photocopy.]

Perhaps an additional code category, such as an asterisk (or "star": *) could indicate combinations which at least a few people have found to have exceptionally good synergy; the "truly outstanding" combinations.

A row across the top, just above the list of cartridges, could be used to indicate the effective mass of each tonearm.

Once done, such a chart would give anyone with a particular tonearm an excellent starting point, a "shopping list", as it were, for possible cartridges that could be used with it.

Alternatively, anyone with a cartridge could readily determine which tonearms (or TTs) it would be suitable to put on.

If the idea is sound and is done, perhaps it should even be made a "sticky"(?). But suggesting that now may well be putting the cart before the horse. First, is this a good idea, and should/will we do it?

I think it wouldn't be very hard to do this in Excel, but I wouldn't know how to get that posted on AK, for people to see and access it. It shouldn't be difficult, though, for those who know how. It would take some time and work for anyone individually to compile all that data, but if AKers collectively pitched in, it would go MUCH faster, and might be done fairly quickly, at least for many of the more common/popular carts and tonearms. With the collective knowledge here, the data should quickly be sufficient for a good start. Then it just takes someone to enter it, which shouldn't take more than an hour or two (or three), or even less, depending on how much data there is.

I know there are thousands of possibilities that have been produced over the years that could eventually make such a chart massive and unwieldy, but let's be honest: excluding the really obscure and obsolete ones, there aren't all that many that people realistically pursue. Some, like the Shure V15 series, the Grados, the Denon 103s, etc... get mentioned over and over. Likewise, there are common TTs/tonearms that keep being mentioned (Technics 1200, RB-300...) Similarly, there are some not-too-rare but "problematic" tonearms like the ultra-light Infinity Black Widow that a new owner may be stumped by. A chart that started with the more commonly-considered models like these, and expanded only as the need arose, should not become too unwieldy, and should be of maximum utility to the maximum number of people.

I'm just throwing this out as an idea. I THINK it would make a great reference, useful to many, but maybe I'm :screwy:. Okay, so maybe I'm :screwy: anyway, but it might still be a good idea?

If you think it's a worthwhile idea, perhaps we could start things off by listing data here, to be included in any such eventual chart? [Which carts are high/med/low compliance? What are the GOOD carts to use with which particular tonearms?] Or if such a thing already exists, please give us a link to it! Or if it's a stupid idea and not worth the trouble, please explain why (not), so not so many people will need to post "Which cart goes well with my tonearm?" questions, again and again..

It's not hard to determine the relative compliance of a cartridge using tracking force as an indicator, nor is arm/cartridge matching complicated once one understands the principles, and I'd rather the questioner understand what it means and be able to make the decision based on knowledge rather than simply referring to a chart. Certainly individual feedback on personal experience with a certain cartridge is helpful, but a spreadsheet with every turntable and cartridge will be impractical, IMO. One might point to the Grado Hum database, but that is different in that there is simply no way to predict the result, so a database showing every turntable is necessary.

Also, in reality, there are really not that many different tonearms, just different brands. Virtually all Japanese s-arms are medium/high mass and are estimated to be between 14-18g, but actual numbers are not published. Technics is the only one I know of who published arm mass and theirs is around 12. Later Japanese straight arms are all low mass, but again, no published numbers. Most other tonearms are listed in the cartridgedb tonearm database.

I do think it would be helpful to have a listing of tonearms and what mass category they fit into. Then perhaps a list of popular cartridges/styli, both new and used, and their published tracking force range, and either suggested or median force. Also a linear scale identifying the range of tracking force as the particular compliance category.

So, in other words, a central thread where information is supplied, and then the questioner could apply the principles and come up with some reasonable matches, then post a thread asking member's specific opinions.

Arkay, are you familiar with these two sites? Not a spreadsheet, but with a little input you can get a tremedous amount of information. Plus, you control the variables rather than a static chart.

http://www.cartridgedb.com/tools.asp

http://www.cartridgedb.com/default_arms.asp

meggy said:

Arkay, are you familiar with these two sites? Not a spreadsheet, but with a little input you can get a tremedous amount of information. Plus, you control the variables rather than a static chart.

http://www.cartridgedb.com/tools.asp

http://www.cartridgedb.com/default_arms.asp

Click to expand...

These tools are nice to have, but as Hakaplan noted there's often no information available for the tonearms on many turntables out there. So how is a guy to determine what he has to work with? I know all 4 of my TT's publish nothing about effective mass, and cartridgedb has nothing but blanks or doesn't list the table at all.

Even cartridge compliance isn't necessarily listed or correct if it's there. If you don't have the data to plug in you're right back where you started.

Jim

Hakaplan, your comments make sense, and is one reason why I threw this out for feedback/ideas. I actually thought about two lists, one as I illustrated for the cartridges, and another for the tonearms, but then thought, why not put them in a chart? Haven't really thought through all the details, but figured many minds are better than one, as your post proves.

Meggy, those sites are certainly useful, but there are times when they aren't enough, as JimReeves points out.

I guess my point is:

1. This type of question comes up repeatedly (If you don't believe me, look back over the posts of any month or two, and count how often you see one. They've been "flowing by" for years!).

2. Since they do keep recurring, the information needed to answer them is either not widely available enough, or not well-enough understood, or both.

3. The characteristics of the cartridges don't change. Neither do the characteristics of the tonearms. What was a good match twenty years ago or two years ago, is a good match this year, and will be next year.

So why do we keep having these questions coming up, year after year? Shouldn't we be able to organize and codify and explain this information in a simple enough reference format, that everyone can use it? I believe from the frequency of such posts, that a need exists: something is obviously missing from the readily-available reference materials. Whether the solution appears as a chart, or two lists, or some other form of how-to or look-it-up guide, is less important than that it helps people to find the answers they seek.

I guess what I'm proposing is some well-organized, readily-accessible reference tool that people can use to short-list and match up compatible cartridges and tonearms.

The first step would be to gather and organize information. Carts can be listed as I've indicated above, with tracking force added. Tonearms can be grouped as Hakaplan suggested [which I had in mind for one variation of the info across the top of the chart; the other version being groupings by brand. The former would be most useful for people with carts looking to find suitable tonearms; the latter would be most useful for people with tonearms looking for suitable cartridges.]

Sometimes information such as effective mass of tonearms isn't available from the manufacturer. In these cases, perhaps proxy measurements or estimations, or simply recommendations based on experimental trial-and-error (/trial-and-success) results can substitute, subject to better information coming along later.

At this point, would it be useful to simply start listing carts and tonearms, with an indication of their stats/groupings, along the lines suggested so far? These can then be grouped into "master lists". Whether these are kept as lists or put into charts, can be decided later.

Or is the idea not worth doing? I can't help but think that it is worth doing, simply because such questions keep recurring!

Arkay: I also don't think that effort would be worthwhile. For one thing, because quite a few influence factors would have to be considered. For example, compliance alone is only half the story - cartridge weight needs to be factored in as well. Then there are possible additional arm features like fluid damping or Dual's Anti-Resonator counterweights... And then there are other compatibility factors, e.g. cartridge height (especially for non-height-adjustable arms) or cartridge mount/headshell compatibility (e.g. Ortofon 2M threaded M2.5 holes vs. Thorens TP63 headshell with M2 holes...)... So, while the idea ain't bad as such, I think it would still be a tool of limited usefulness - probably even if all of these issues were taken care of, 'cause then there'd still remain the question of sonic flavour as well as the question for what would be good bargain at the moment. And let's face it: A lot of people will always rather post their questions, regardless of how easy they could do the research for themselves.

Hence in my opinion that's just too much work for making it a more useful tool than what's already there - especially as it is to be expected that a lot of people wouldn't use it, anyway.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

The biggest issue in such an attempt is how to make objective measurements. Obviously, we couldn't accept subjective opinions on how well the combo tracks. There are test records but are scarce and not everyone would be using the same test conditions, in effect invalidating the results.

I for one am confused as to what is high or med-low compliance cart and how to tell the difference . I am assuming my S arm Sansui is suitable for high compliance carts where as the Thoren's TP-16 is more low or med ? But how to tell which cart is lo-med-high is puzzling. I have 4 carts and have swapped them around some , and yes some perform better on one arm than the other .
So a basic chart of some sort or an understanding of the Cart database would be nice for me . Just a general idea , ie: high compliance carts are made by
shure , AT , Denon , etc , and then the others. Would help with my constant window shopping and prevent a purchase that would be of no use to me.

Arkay, seems like a great idea. You got my interest but after reading the comments by Howard, SaSi, Lini and others I wonder. The biggest hurdle I see is until you or someone can address how to practically measure effective mass where that data doesn't already exist, I don't see how this could work.

You guys might think I'm crazy but the repeated questions don't annoy me at all. If I feel like answering I do and if not someone else always does or a newbie can even take a stab and help too.

hakaplan said:

It's not hard to determine the relative compliance of a cartridge using tracking force as an indicator, nor is arm/cartridge matching complicated once one understands the principles, and I'd rather the questioner understand what it means and be able to make the decision based on knowledge rather than simply referring to a chart.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with Howard on this. One of the most frustrating, yet enjoyable experiences I've had as I've returned to vinyl after many years has been reading and asking questions and learning through trial and error.

I'm very new to AK as a member, but I've learned a ton by reading through old threads. To me, all that reading has been a lot of fun. I understand that many people might not have the time or patience to dig through old threads. Hopefully, they won't be shy about asking questions of the great members here. The discussions in the threads offer so much more than a chart ever could. I think it would be a pity if the standard response to a cart/tonearm question became, "Check the chart."

I'm willing to measure the actual weight of the playing end of the arms on my tables with a digital scale if we can agree on the rules. Say without headshells (as we use these to add effective mass to tame some carts). With the counterweight either removed (not good as it's part of mass) or screwed in all the way.

BUT, what about the JVC - it has a magneto dampened arm with downforce set and controlled by a feedback circuit. It will not act as the basic weight/mass would indicate. I think there are quite a few variables?