• 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

Is the Black Widow that good?

MitsuMan said:
And then to produce a piece of literature that clearly showed a Denon DL-103 mounted to it. Either they knew something that escaped most everyone, or as others have suggested, a lightweight cartridge with reasonable compliance (> = 20) worked and sounded just fine. :dunno:
Click to expand...

tnsilver said:
I've seen it before, but it's so stupid I had to see it again just to make sure. Yes, it's smack in the owners manual with no less than a label on the cart saying 'Denon DL-103'. No mistake about it. Now go figure how such a stupid thing ends up in the commercial public domain. There couldn't be a worst mismatch in the entire phono cartridge world.
Click to expand...

Could it be they used the DL-103 because it is such a square shaped cartridge? It really helps show what to look for in the overhang and arm height setup section of the manual in a way another cartridge might not.
 
empirelvr said:
Could it be they used the DL-103 because it is such a square shaped cartridge? It really helps show what to look for in the overhang and arm height setup section of the manual in a way another cartridge might not.
Click to expand...
Good question. It's just me being pedantic probably, but I would love to know what sort of thought process and internal review was done regarding that literature. You might assume it was strictly left up to the Technical Writer at the time, who may not have had a clue. If it was reviewed at all by anyone in their engineering department, why would they have blessed it? I have a Pioneer PL-8 with carbon fiber tonearm that is very low mass (not 3 grams of course!) and I can't even imagine hanging my ZU DL-103 mk ii on it and the results being even good let alone very good. :eek:
 
pinging @beej

Do you have any idea what the effective mass of the PL-8 tonearm might be? Even an educated guess? My manual states recommended cartridge weights from 3 gms - 8 gms. That's pretty light.
 
I've got an early aluminum armtube version that I am going to throw on my TD-124 one of these days. Just from playing with it off a TT, it feels well made, precise, and I tend to like cartridges which benefit from low mass tonearms, so it's a good match. I intend to mount a Stanton 881S on it.

For more modern moving coils like my Lyra, something in the 8-11gm range is more suitable, otherwise all my preferred carts will work on the BW.
 
vinyldavid said:
I've got an early aluminum armtube version that I am going to throw on my TD-124 one of these days. Just from playing with it off a TT, it feels well made, precise, and I tend to like cartridges which benefit from low mass tonearms, so it's a good match. I intend to mount a Stanton 881S on it.

For more modern moving coils like my Lyra, something in the 8-11gm range is more suitable, otherwise all my preferred carts will work on the BW.
Click to expand...
The 881S is one that should be a very good match.
 
E-Stat said:
Clearaudio made several variations on the Souther theme culminating in the one found on the Statement. I had the good fortune to play with the latter at Sea Cliff on several occasions. Unlike the rest of the brood, the entire tower slides back on the labeled semicircular rail to clear the platter rather than tipping it upwards to the side.

Playing records on that was always quite the ritual:

1. Clean record with the HW-17
2. Demagnetize with Furutec DeMag
3. Place record on platter
4. Replace platter clamp
5. Select speed for operation
6. Slide arm tower forward
7. *Carefully* clean Goldfinger stylus
8. Lower stylus to record!

stmt_linear.jpg
Click to expand...
The Clearaudio arms with the slotted tube channel are based on the Cantus, the rail arms are Souther based. Bo
Hansson @ Opus 3, the Scandinavian agent for Souther, had Lou Souther's blessing to experiment with variations of Lou's concept, which led to the slotted tube channel idea and the Cantus.
 
user510 said:
I'm aware of the RD-11s. A piece of audio history there. A cool turntable to have, I would think. The main reason I thought the Vestigial arm would be matched to a transcriptors table is because (I think) it was Transcriptors that manufactured that arm. A dual pivot type arm.
photo-5b-e1400221186852.jpg

Above image is what I was referring to in my earlier post. Quite a thing to behold back in the 1970's. Although I must confess we were all pretty well loaded while over at Pete's place that day.

-Steve
Click to expand...

Transcriptors also made a TT (Transcriber) that moved the platter while the arm was fixed. It pivoted up and down only.

the_transcriptor_transcriber_2327553.jpg

  • from Radiomuseum.org
  • Model: The Transcriptor Transcriber Turntable - Transcriptors Ltd.; London,
  • Shape
  • Tablemodel, low profile (big size).
  • Dimensions (WHD)
  • 514 x 170 x 365 mm / 20.2 x 6.7 x 14.4 inch
  • Notes
  • A two speed (33⅓, 45 rpm) belt drive turntable fitted with a Transcriptor Microtracer arm and Ortofon VMS20E cartridge. The Microtracer arm is fastened to the glass lid and while a record is playing the platter and deck move along on tracks beneath it, controlled by an optical sensor and servo.

    Construction :
    Aluminium and stainless steel components housed in a clear toughened glass case, all glass edges ground

    Specification
    Turntable :
    Wow : Better than 0.05%
    Flutter : Not Measurable
    Motors : 2 x 24 pole synchronous
    Drive : Via a thin section neoprene belt

    Platter : 305mm (12 inch) diameter non ferrous fitted with five point disc suspension platter weights.
    Main Bearing : Thin section ground and polished stainless steel running into teflon bushes, and onto a tungsten thrust pad.

    Linear Motion
    Motor : DC Servo
    Drive : Via neoprene belt to the great pulley, linear motion through worm and nut. Self centring universal joint on worm. Runs on three aluminium wheels, onto stainless steel rails, all bearings teflon bushed.
    Cueing : Pointer indicates precise position of stylus on disc enabling easy cueing to a number.

    Microtracer Arm
    Pivot to stylus dimension : 38mm (1½ inch)
    Moving mass : 13.4 grams
    Inertia : 114 grams/cm²
    Tracing Error : 0.1° max
    Pivot : Jewelled unipivot fluid damped
    Tracking Weight : 0.5 grams max requirement
    Adjustments : All adjustments to suit any high compliance cartridge
    Leads : 100 cm (42 inch) long capacitance 34pF per foot suitable for quadraphonic operation.

    Built in the Republic of Ireland
 
tnsilver said:
It's carbon fiber. It's an extremely stiff composite and albeit the flexibility can be controlled by the epoxy resin additive, I don't think it's a desired feature in a tonearm. Before I sold my BW, I slapped a Denon DL-110 on it. The 110 came off an SME 3009 imp (fixed HS with 6.5g eff. mass). It was already a border line match with the SME, and I've guesstimated (correctly) that with 8cu@100Hz it's not gonna 'shine', to say the least, with the BW. Indeed - it was a disaster. It lacked lows, it sounded smeared and it had an annoying sibilance to it. The DL-103 is spec'd at 5cu@100Hz. I've never tried it with my BW, but in light of how miserably it failed with a more compliant cart - I don't think the outcome is hard to guess. It's kinda like mounting a VW beetle chassis on an 18 wheeler tractor suspension and pondering how it handles off-road. No amount of material engineering magic can compensate for lousy physics.
Click to expand...
The first version was two section light alloy tube, the subsequent version CF.
That arm is the first version.
 
I had one that I bought on BT when I first got into records around 2011. I eventually mounted it on an SL-1200MK2 with a V15 V-MR, which was a great combination. I exited analog audio for quite a while shortly after, so I sold it on eBay to someone from I believe Finland. Wish I had kept it!
 
Pio1980 said:
I 'think' the TQ (tri-quartz) series were Souther system based, and the TT (tube track?) series Opus 3 Cantus derived, iirc.
Click to expand...
When you follow the link (and scroll down), you find that the first three are rail based like my TQ-1. Only the TT-5 looks different in operation.
 
Is the effective mass of these things really 3g? I estimate the effective mass of my very light DIY arm at approx. 8g. At 3g, I think even the VM5 and VM7 line of cartridges would result in resonances starting at too high of frequencies.
 
cgallery said:
Is the effective mass of these things really 3g? I estimate the effective mass of my very light DIY arm at approx. 8g. At 3g, I think even the VM5 and VM7 line of cartridges would result in resonances starting at too high of frequencies.
Click to expand...
According to the literature, yes.
 
MitsuMan said:
pinging @beej

Do you have any idea what the effective mass of the PL-8 tonearm might be? Even an educated guess? My manual states recommended cartridge weights from 3 gms - 8 gms. That's pretty light.
Click to expand...
The cartridge weight does not mean anything. You may have a 4-5 g cartridge with say 25cu compliance (ortofon super om20), or, 4 g cartridge with 13 cu compliance (ortofon mc1 turbo).
Surely these two examples will not need the same tonearm mass. To get a resonance frequency of 10Hz with the mc1turbo you need total effective mass close to 20 g , while with the super om you need around 10 g. So ,it is total effective mass and cartridge compliance that is most important.
 
LP-THORN said:
The cartridge weight does not mean anything. You may have a 4-5 g cartridge with say 25cu compliance (ortofon super om20), or, 4 g cartridge with 13 cu compliance (ortofon mc1 turbo).
Surely these two examples will not need the same tonearm mass. To get a resonance frequency of 10Hz with the mc1turbo you need total effective mass close to 20 g , while with the super om you need around 10 g. So ,it is total effective mass and cartridge compliance that is most important.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I understand. I have a different reason for reaching out to Butch. :beerchug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom