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?
jeremy72
Jeremy,
Static compliance is always higher than dynamic. It's dynamic compliance that is used to estimate arm/cart resonance. The standard used in these calculations is measured at 10Hz. Some Japanese cart manufacturers measure dynamic at 100Hz. Those figures are not directly comparable to 10Hz figures.
Regards,
So, what you are saying is that most mfg.'s (Lyra, Shelter, Ortofon ect.) use dynamic compliance numbers on their spec sheets but for some reason VDH is using static compliance figures. Correct me if I am wrong here..

Is there a conversion calculator for converting static compliance to dynamic compliance?
Is this formula correct? If so, it would indicate that both are identical measurements only stated in different units.

1 cm / dyne = 1 g ^-1.s^2 = 10^3 kg^-1.s^2

thus 10^-6 cm/ dyne = 10^-3 kg^-1.s^2

1 um = 10^-6m

1 mN= 10^-3 kg.m.s^-2

therefore 1 um / mN = 10^-3 kg^-1.s^2

the two units are thus identical.

From what I gather on the Colibri test measurement sheet their testing is conducted at roughly 100Hz. (Similar to how Lyra tests)
All this together would seem to indicate that the stated VDH 35 Micron/mN compliance is the same as saying 35 x 10-6 cm/dyn only in different terms. If testing was done @ 100Hz. I think...

Its kinda like saying .5" is the same as 1/2" Right?

My math could be flawed though, so if that is the case anyone please feel free to correct these statements above.