• 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

Resonance & Technics mk2 & 881S & Super OM40

Mark 1234

Mark 1234

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
Hello I need some help- I have a 1200mk11, Stanton 881S with a D81S stylus and a Ortofon Super OM40.
The Technics tonearm according to the manual has a 12g mass with headshell. I weighed the headshell at 8g so I am using 12.5g in the resonance calculator since the manual states the headshell is 7.5g. The 881s/d81s weighs 6.7g with brush, the Super OM40 weighs 4.7g. The compliance of the 881 seems to be 30 and the OM40 35.
With these numbers I am at 7Hz and in the green with the 881 but at 6Hz (not green) with the OM40.
Do I need a lighter tonearm?
Thank you
 
Register to hide this ad
Hi Mark. In theory yes. You're not in the green zone in either case. However, at the lower end deviations from the goldilocks range (8Hz - 11Hz), it's mainly critical with long flexible floor boards where 8Hz footfall can easily be picked up or if the TT suspension / isolation isn't sufficient. It all depends on unique combinations of environmental and system variables per setup, and these charts aren't cast in stone. The headshell, BTW, isn't accounted separately in these charts as it is an integral part of the tonearm's effective mass. With that said, both of these carts are known to be some of the more compliant out there and not many purists would consider a Technics SL-12XX the target record player for neither of these.
 
Last edited:
tnsilver said:
In theory yes. You're not in the green zone in either case. However, at the lower end deviations from the goldilocks range (8Hz - 11Hz), it's mainly critical with long flexible floor boards where 8Hz footfall can easily be picked up or if the TT suspension / isolation isn't sufficient. It all depends on unique combinations of environmental and system variables per setup, and these charts aren't cast in stone. The headshell, BTW, isn't accounted separately in these charts as it is an integral part of the tonearm's effective mass. With that said, both of these carts are known to be some of the more compliant out there and not many purists would consider a Technics SL-12XX the target record player for neither of these.
Click to expand...
Agreed, though if the OP is really married to using either of these carts, the KAB fluid damper for the 1200 would go a long ways toward making it less of a mismatch.
 
Note that the compliance of OM40 was changed long time ago from 35 to 25. If you can balance the tonearm without the Ortofon 2,5 g weight you will get around 8 Hz. Still low IMO but will probably be fine.
 
Thank you. I was thinking of selling the Ortofon 30,40 & D81S as all have very little use and buy a cartridge that is closer to 9-11Hz with the Technics. I have a Pioneer SX-950 so probably a MM cartridge. An AT150MLX? Any other suggestions? I would like it to have a better than elliptical stylus. Maybe I am imagining this but with the 40 & D81S used records sound close to new with the fuller contact area.
 
I tried not very successfully to find a lighter headshell than the stock Technics. With wires and screws weights 8g. The screws weigh .4 grams. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place. Any suggestions?

What got me thinking about all this and second guessing what I had is I am selling a Pioneer Pl-640. I put an OM20 on it and it sounds almost as good (louder than) as the 1200 with the 40 & D81S. The Pl-640 has a Dynamic Resonance Absorber and has a light weight arm.
I think I will try the fluid damper.
 
Mark 1234 said:
Thank you. I was thinking of selling the Ortofon 30,40 & D81S as all have very little use and buy a cartridge that is closer to 9-11Hz with the Technics. I have a Pioneer SX-950 so probably a MM cartridge. An AT150MLX? Any other suggestions? I would like it to have a better than elliptical stylus. Maybe I am imagining this but with the 40 & D81S used records sound close to new with the fuller contact area.
Click to expand...

I suggest the AT95VL
 
needlestein (and anyone else). Here is a pic of the D81S. It looks like you have done a good amount of stylus work. Any thoughts on this? I thought it looked pretty good but cannot get much closer. DSCF0694c.jpg
 
Mark 1234 said:
Hello I need some help- I have a 1200mk11, Stanton 881S with a D81S stylus and a Ortofon Super OM40.
The Technics tonearm according to the manual has a 12g mass with headshell. I weighed the headshell at 8g so I am using 12.5g in the resonance calculator since the manual states the headshell is 7.5g. The 881s/d81s weighs 6.7g with brush, the Super OM40 weighs 4.7g. The compliance of the 881 seems to be 30 and the OM40 35.
With these numbers I am at 7Hz and in the green with the 881 but at 6Hz (not green) with the OM40.
Do I need a lighter tonearm?
Thank you
Click to expand...

Your math assumptions are interesting. If your going to adjust the differences between stated headshell weight and actual weight, did you include the headshell wires or screws and nuts needed to hold the cartridge to the headshell? If you are going to split hairs, then you should do it completely.....
 
I did include those when I weighed it at 8G. I guess I could have added the .5 g to the cartridge weight instead.
 
I have found that the HIFI news test record corresponds quite well with the Shure, ortfon, etal test records that I have used for 40 years, excepting the crosstalk tests and frequency response.

Instead of guessing or endless calculating why not do a dynamic test.....then add or decrease mass as needed.
 
Mark 1234 said:
Has anyone tried the Supex SL-4?
Click to expand...

I use a Supex on a SL 1200 because I [perversly] like to use a cart/stylus which is rated at 35cu.
And I'm only able to do so using the lighter Supex along with the KAB oil damper. Neither by itself does the trick.
Surprisingly, the combo does work. Tracks solidly. Sounds fantastic.

Edit: I should mention that using the Supex may well take you very close to bottoming out counterweight adjustment. In fact with the Ortofon you might have to add a tiny bit of weight to get the VTF you need. As my table is now, I have about a half gram of adjustment left after I set VTF.
 
Last edited:
I ordered those two items a few days ago. Excited to try them. The test record sounds very interesting. Have many of you used them?
 
c_dk said:
I have found that the HIFI news test record corresponds quite well with the Shure, ortfon, etal test records that I have used for 40 years, excepting the crosstalk tests and frequency response.

Instead of guessing or endless calculating why not do a dynamic test.....then add or decrease mass as needed.
Click to expand...
I finally got one of the HIFI test records. Very cool! Thank you. With the 1200mk2, Supex headshell, 881s, d81S with brush and fluid damper the resonant frequency with the test record is about 8.5-9 Hz. With the computer formula based on a compliance of 30 I am at 7Hz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom