• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Actual cartridge compliance specs - what do they mean?

The OC-9 tracks at 1.8-2.2g and an OM-30 tracks at 1-1.5g. So those measurements showing the AT having higher compliance don't add up.
 
So if given both values, which do you use if you need a high compliance cart?

Denon does not give an effective mass for the DP-57L staright arm (PCL-57, service manual # 3158781003), only saying it is "Low Mass". Given this, I need a high compliance cartridges. Given the two types of measurement, is the following a good fit (i.e. high compliance)?

VM740ML
Static Compliance 40 x 10-6 cm/dyne
Dynamic Compliance 10 x 10-6 cm/dyne (100 Hz)
 
greg fox said:
So if given both values, which do you use if you need a high compliance cart?

Denon does not give an effective mass for the DP-57L staright arm (PCL-57, service manual # 3158781003), only saying it is "Low Mass". Given this, I need a high compliance cartridges. Given the two types of measurement, is the following a good fit (i.e. high compliance)?

VM740ML
Static Compliance 40 x 10-6 cm/dyne
Dynamic Compliance 10 x 10-6 cm/dyne (100 Hz)
Click to expand...
Dynamic compliance is the one more usually considered and this is the one used in the Vinyl Engine resonance calculator. But AT quote their dynamic compliance at 100Hz while it is more conventional to use the value measured at 10Hz. There is a fudge factor to convert from the 100Hz value to 10Hz value, which is usually taken to be around 1.75 but is not considered reliable. Anyway, it would take the dynamic compliance of the AT cartridge to 17.5 which is towards the high end of medium-compliance. The usual wisdom is these AT cartridges are OK on a low-mass arm - their compliance may be higher than the estimated value suggests. If you want something truly high-compliance, consider an Ortofon OM cartridge with dynamic compliance of 25.
 
Crab33 said:
Dynamic compliance is the one more usually considered and this is the one used in the Vinyl Engine resonance calculator. But AT quote their dynamic compliance at 100Hz while it is more conventional to use the value measured at 10Hz. There is a fudge factor to convert from the 100Hz value to 10Hz value, which is usually taken to be around 1.75 but is not considered reliable. Anyway, it would take the dynamic compliance of the AT cartridge to 17.5 which is towards the high end of medium-compliance. The usual wisdom is these AT cartridges are OK on a low-mass arm - their compliance may be higher than the estimated value suggests. If you want something truly high-compliance, consider an Ortofon OM cartridge with dynamic compliance of 25.
Click to expand...
Oh, OK. I was thinking that the 10Hz measurement WAS static, and 100Hz was dynamic. So both 10 and 100 are both dynamic vaues. Makes sense now that I say it outloud, as Hz cant be static :)
 
ETI_5000 said:
Check my database https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CPSW9PMLb3rkIdZQHpvnpVmcxXVF7Bal2Uz7YkKYR28/edit?usp=sharing , which has real-world measurements of low frequency resonances for more than 700 arm/cartridge combinations, from magazine reviews (American, Australian, British, German and occasional Dutch or Swedish) of the last 50 years.

It can be sorted (tabs at the bottom of the page) either by cartridge or turntable/tonearm, and I’m still updating the list – I just put another 25 in today.

An OK arm/cartridge match is one with a resonance between 8 and 12Hz.
Click to expand...
Thanks ETI_5000 for such great job! But could you explain in case of Denon DL-160 why with JVC's QL-F6 tonearm with 17 g eff mass RF is higher than with tonearms with eff mass 14 g and 13 g? It is well known fact that to reduce RF you need to use tonearm with higher eff mass and vice versa.
 
Discofan said:
Thanks ETI_5000 for such great job! But could you explain in case of Denon DL-160 why with JVC's QL-F6 tonearm with 17 g eff mass RF is higher than with tonearms with eff mass 14 g and 13 g? It is well known fact that to reduce RF you need to use tonearm with higher eff mass and vice versa.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

External factors that can influence the resonant frequency include temperature and cartridge or stylus age (many were new or near-new, but some may have been older, affecting stylus suspension stiffness). It is also possible that quality control may cause slight variations between different examples of the same model cartridge.

So while many agreed with theory, and may have been within a ±20% range of what a resonance calculator suggested, some differed, as they tend to do in the real world. The measurements in the database came from many different real-world sources (mainly magazine or newspaper reviews and audio club measurements between 1967 and 2022), and from at least 10 different countries, so the measuring equipment used was another variable. None were measured by me, although I occasionally do measure my own for resonant frequency, using test records (mainly Shure), and PC recording programs.

I won’t suggest that some measurements may be wrong through operator error, such as writing the wrong number down when their children, colleagues, siblings or lovers have interrupted them, but others may have suggested that, so it’s probably a correct assumption….:)
 
Last edited:
ETI_5000 said:
Thank you.

External factors that can influence the resonant frequency include temperature and cartridge or stylus age (many were new or near-new, but some may have been older, affecting stylus suspension stiffness). It is also possible that quality control may cause slight variations between different examples of the same model cartridge.

So while many agreed with theory, and may have been within a ±20% range of what a resonance calculator suggested, some differed, as they tend to do in the real world. The measurements in the database came from many different real-world sources (mainly magazine or newspaper reviews and audio club measurements between 1967 and 2022), and from at least 10 different countries, so the measuring equipment used was another variable. None were measured by me, although I occasionally do measure my own for resonant frequency, using test records (mainly Shure), and PC recording programs.

I won’t suggest that some measurements may be wrong through operator error, such as writing the wrong number down when their children, colleagues, siblings or lovers have interrupted them, but others may have suggested that, so it’s probably a correct assumption….:)
Click to expand...

Thank you for such an elaborate answer. Could you share what programs do you use to determine the resonant frequency? I also have Shure test record and Hi-Fi News record, also I use regular vinyl records and use Audacity. But this program is not too quite accurate. I searched for other programs, but found nothing more suitable. Can you recommend something else? Thank you.
 
Wow - lots of information. You might ask 'Wow, what did we do before all these tools were available?' Which, ironically, included the whole vinyl era of audio.
And the answer would be, we listened and looked. The point of mass/compliance calculations is not mathematical perfection, it is is good listening, and your ears and eyes are capable tools to achieve good sound. Fancy calculations can help, but only if the data used is reliable - which is an issue.
If your arm is oscillating, if you have skips over small warps, if bass tracking isn't secure, you probably have an arm too massy for your cartridge. If bass is bloated, see if you can lower the mass - a lighter headshell, lighter screws, etc. If bass is light, try adding mass, since you may not have a massy enough arm - I think this is a more common problem than sometimes realized.
Damping can help ameliorate problems, but it is not a panacea. As someone who has overdamped at times, too much is a cure worse than the disease.
 
Nat said:
Wow - lots of information. You might ask 'Wow, what did we do before all these tools were available?' Which, ironically, included the whole vinyl era of audio.
And the answer would be, we listened and looked. The point of mass/compliance calculations is not mathematical perfection, it is is good listening, and your ears and eyes are capable tools to achieve good sound. Fancy calculations can help, but only if the data used is reliable - which is an issue.
If your arm is oscillating, if you have skips over small warps, if bass tracking isn't secure, you probably have an arm too massy for your cartridge. If bass is bloated, see if you can lower the mass - a lighter headshell, lighter screws, etc. If bass is light, try adding mass, since you may not have a massy enough arm - I think this is a more common problem than sometimes realized.
Damping can help ameliorate problems, but it is not a panacea. As someone who has overdamped at times, too much is a cure worse than the disease.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. But times have changed. Back in "the whole vinyl era of audio" you could more easily go to your local stereo shop and do that necessary listening - swapping out cartridges and tonearms until you found the sound you were looking for. Now most of those stereo stores are gone, so you're more likely to buy a cartridge over the internet, making the tools and data necessary.
 
A good point, but I wonder if those numbers and tools actually help much, or whether they unnecesarily channel people into narrow, and even incorrect, boxes. I think mass/compliance issues are actually not that big a deal, and that, to a large degree, they distract from the more important 'how does the cartridge sound?' question. Which, I acknowledge, is very hard to find out, now that stereo stores are essentially nonexistent.
On the more cheerful side, I find that most cartridges actually sound pretty good - their flaws are often only obvious in comparison with other cartridges, so perhaps all the comparisons we used to do were the disease, not the cure.
 
Nat said:
A good point, but I wonder if those numbers and tools actually help much, or whether they unnecesarily channel people into narrow, and even incorrect, boxes. I think mass/compliance issues are actually not that big a deal, and that, to a large degree, they distract from the more important 'how does the cartridge sound?' question. Which, I acknowledge, is very hard to find out, now that stereo stores are essentially nonexistent.
On the more cheerful side, I find that most cartridges actually sound pretty good - their flaws are often only obvious in comparison with other cartridges, so perhaps all the comparisons we used to do were the disease, not the cure.
Click to expand...
A *rough* guide is to use the manufacturer's *optimum* tracking force as a ball park figure. You should be ok using a low mass arm with a cartridge that has a recommended tracking force of say between 1.0 to about 1.6gm. 1.6 to 2.2 gram would suit a medium effective mass arm of between say 9gm to 13gm ..i.e something like a rega rb250 or Linn Basik. Anything with an optimum tracking force much above 2.2 grams would suggest using a tonearm with a greater effective mass than 13gm .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom