I understand the need to keep the system resonance out of the audible frequency band and footfall band. But why would a low mass arm be useful in doing that. I would have thought that the idea was to keep the arm from moving in sympathy with the stylus, and a higher inertial would accomplish that. In fact, if we could maintain a ridgid mount of the cartridge body, and only allowed the stylus to move in response to the groove modulations, wouldnt that be the perfect set up, no losses due to the arm moving in the same direction as the stylus or gains for that matter when the arm moves opposite to the stylus. So wouldnt a high mass arm accomplish that goal better than a low mass arm, even with a high compliance cartridge.
Cartridge Loading and Compliance Laws
After reading into various threads concerning cartridge/arm compatibility, then gathering information from various cartridge manufacturers I am left feeling confused with head spinning a bit.... Ok, cart compliance I get, arm and total mass I get, arm/cart compatibility and the whole 8-12 Hz ideal res. freq. range I get. But why on earth then do some phono cartridge mfgs claim their carts are ok to use with med. mass common modern arms when they are in the highish 20-35cu compliance range? Am I missing something??
Ie. Soundsmith, VanDenHul, Ortofon and who knows, maybe more??
From what I gather, below 8Hz is bad and above 12Hz is bad. If one is less ideal than the other, which is worse I wonder, too low res. freq. or too high?
Ie. Soundsmith, VanDenHul, Ortofon and who knows, maybe more??
From what I gather, below 8Hz is bad and above 12Hz is bad. If one is less ideal than the other, which is worse I wonder, too low res. freq. or too high?
- ...
- 47 posts total
- 47 posts total