Dont take my word for it . . .
- Thread starter CJSF
- Start date
Al ears
Well-known member
You can improve your sound for nothing . . . thats if you have a blob of BluTack and a 1p pice?
With the advent of the Audiomods Classic arm coming, I have been playing with the' AM' head shell mass weigts, originaly with the idea of compliance matching the arm and cartridge. It turnes out my cartridge matches, however, the compliance window is flexible,
So keeping within the window, I changed my tack, go for an imovable mass, (more weight at the cartridge). The advantages were obvious as one thought about it, the mass does not move so esily as the stylus tracks the groove, therefor transiants are more precise, in fact all infomation is more detailed and precise. Max Townsend has been using the principle for years with the silicon trough and paddle on his Rock TT.
I have spent quite a lot of time fiddling with the mass weights Audiomods supplied, a light 2.6g, a medium one at over 5ozs, a heavy one that I have not tried.
The light one gave subtle improvements, I tried the middle weight . . . big changes, but I was not happy with the sound, it became analitical, erring towards digital and bright and the musicality of my system was gon! Lots more thought :? how would an inbetween mass weight work . . . ?
This was my answere, cut the middle weight down, the picture showes the heavy weight giving the shap of all the weights supplied, it also shows my trimed shape, weighs 4.6gs.
I have been using this setup for a few days now, the improvements are amazing, as compared with cable changes, there is no comparison! Sharper, tighter, musicality, image all a step forwad, the set of 3 cost £20, compared to the claims made for cable, no contest.
OK . . . how to put this over as a post . . . ??? Try it for your self, a 1p coin weighs 3.6gs, BluTack it to the headshell, three tiny, tiny blobs, one between the bolts and two at the back, dont let the coin touch the bolts or the headshell, re ballance the arm, I have found that slightly less down force is required. Mine went from 1.98gs to 1.9gs dead! The reduction of 0.01gs increments showed a change each time, I went to 1.88gs the sound went cold and light.
Jeff at Audiomods, sugested the temporary BluTack method to prove the point, dont take anyones word for it, try it for 1p! The final fixing is solid bolting between the cartridge and headshell, I have yet to try this, when the new arm comes I think
In the meantime, I enjoy the improved smooth musicality and tight base of my system, with a slightly od looking headshell arangement
CJSF
With the advent of the Audiomods Classic arm coming, I have been playing with the' AM' head shell mass weigts, originaly with the idea of compliance matching the arm and cartridge. It turnes out my cartridge matches, however, the compliance window is flexible,
So keeping within the window, I changed my tack, go for an imovable mass, (more weight at the cartridge). The advantages were obvious as one thought about it, the mass does not move so esily as the stylus tracks the groove, therefor transiants are more precise, in fact all infomation is more detailed and precise. Max Townsend has been using the principle for years with the silicon trough and paddle on his Rock TT.
I have spent quite a lot of time fiddling with the mass weights Audiomods supplied, a light 2.6g, a medium one at over 5ozs, a heavy one that I have not tried.
The light one gave subtle improvements, I tried the middle weight . . . big changes, but I was not happy with the sound, it became analitical, erring towards digital and bright and the musicality of my system was gon! Lots more thought :? how would an inbetween mass weight work . . . ?
This was my answere, cut the middle weight down, the picture showes the heavy weight giving the shap of all the weights supplied, it also shows my trimed shape, weighs 4.6gs.
I have been using this setup for a few days now, the improvements are amazing, as compared with cable changes, there is no comparison! Sharper, tighter, musicality, image all a step forwad, the set of 3 cost £20, compared to the claims made for cable, no contest.
OK . . . how to put this over as a post . . . ??? Try it for your self, a 1p coin weighs 3.6gs, BluTack it to the headshell, three tiny, tiny blobs, one between the bolts and two at the back, dont let the coin touch the bolts or the headshell, re ballance the arm, I have found that slightly less down force is required. Mine went from 1.98gs to 1.9gs dead! The reduction of 0.01gs increments showed a change each time, I went to 1.88gs the sound went cold and light.
Jeff at Audiomods, sugested the temporary BluTack method to prove the point, dont take anyones word for it, try it for 1p! The final fixing is solid bolting between the cartridge and headshell, I have yet to try this, when the new arm comes I think
In the meantime, I enjoy the improved smooth musicality and tight base of my system, with a slightly od looking headshell arangement
CJSF
Alears said:
Patience Alears, patience, it takes time to 'work around the system' . . .
Here you go.CJSF
The_Lhc
Well-known member
The_Lhc said:
The gross weight will be around 4gs (with ref to 1p?), depends on your interpretation of tiny? I have tested weights from 2.6 to 4.6 plus the three tiny BluTack blobs. My feeling is the weight, within reason is less significan to the principal of the 'imovable mass'. One suspect a paralell arm uses similar thinking in the horizontal plane, although it more rigidity than mass, but still reduced sideways movement?
Its a bit of tweakery that works and is easy to try.
CJSF
PS I would suspect high compliance cartridges might need a lighter mass increas??? My Sumiko has a compliance of 12.
Al ears
Well-known member
?Lighter mass incease? I'm not chopping anything off my headshell!
I know what you mean. I used to run a little more mass in my old tonearm with my Denon Dl103R as it seemed to appreciate it and there are / were specifically made bits to enable you to do just that.
Can have a detrimental effect in correctly matched systems though.
There is, however, no harm in experimenting as mods are easily removed.
I know what you mean. I used to run a little more mass in my old tonearm with my Denon Dl103R as it seemed to appreciate it and there are / were specifically made bits to enable you to do just that.
Can have a detrimental effect in correctly matched systems though.
There is, however, no harm in experimenting as mods are easily removed.
Alears said:?Lighter mass incease? I'm not chopping anything off my headshell!
I know what you mean. I used to run a little more mass in my old tonearm with my Denon Dl103R as it seemed to appreciate it and there are / were specifically made bits to enable you to do just that.
Can have a detrimental effect in correctly matched systems though.
There is, however, no harm in experimenting as mods are easily removed.
That Is exactly the point Alears, its not perminant, it dont cost anything, so why not try?
As you say, upset the match and its detremental but you can hear that, hense my cutting one of my mass weights, to what I though would be better as it turnes out to be. I did get the infomation of arm/cartrige compliance first for my setup, which is what set me on this path. Discovering that there is a general acceptance of medium arm to which most cartridges seem to fit . . . Logical realy otherwise it would be a nightmare to mix and match? The infomation I was given showed a fairly wide band of compliance, even if one tightend up on this, the margins were wide enough to play as I have done and still be within spec.
My arm/cartridge un-aduterated, fits the tables for matching . . . however a little fine tuning has moved it from good to satisfyingly excelent and the match has move more to the center of the scale. The same applies to stylus down force, recomended force will be good, change it by 0.01-0.02'ths of a gram can make a world of differeance.
One spends XXX amount of '£' on a system, be that large or small, why should one not tune it to give of its absolute best . . . ?
Head shell triming, I only trimmed the mass weight which only cost a few quid . . . please dont go cutting the arm or its head shell . . . :doh:
CJSF
Not really magic or tweakery. There are tables which give the the correct range of arm mass and cartridge compliance. The DL103 is far better suited to high mass arms, so you need to add weight to get it working properly. A DL103 in an RB300 definitely needs quite a bit of weight added, for example.
Good idea (we used to) is to check the cartridge matches your arm before splashing the cash.
Good idea (we used to) is to check the cartridge matches your arm before splashing the cash.
altruistic.lemon said:
Problem is alturistic.lemon . . . one does not see many indulging in this sort of tweaking . . . one goes back to the 'plug and play Rega philosophy'. Sure, it works, but it can work better, a lot better, it just take a bit of time and thought, fun for me, I maximise my investment and the enjoyment from my music . . . :cheer:
CJSF
plastic penguin
Well-known member
Even better way of improving the SQ: Leave it turned off for a couple of days. Not being faceious, but it works. Doesn't cost a penny.
plastic penguin said:
. . . ??? defetes the object does it not PP? . . . :doh: I appreciate the musicality of my system, cant get enough of it, much of which due to my efforts of tweaking over the past couple of years . . . :dance:
CJSF
plastic penguin
Well-known member
plastic penguin said:
Only if you dont like the sound . . . and dont know what to do to get it right? . . . :wall:
CJSF
plastic penguin
Well-known member
CJSF said:
CJ - sometimes you can overplay or overmess with components. Really do understand you're trying to eek out as much performance as possible. Looking at your kit, most people would be envious (including me) so just be grateful and accept the qualities of your set-up but... probably more important, is accept there's no such thing as a PERFECT system. That is the proverbial hi-fi rainbow. You'll keep going and going until you make yourself unwell. Nothing is worth that, not even hi-fi.
plastic penguin said:
?? . . . Agree, no such thing as perfect in any aspect of life. Hifi is one of those areas that is a bit grey, personal and subjective. I'm almost at the top of my 'small ladder'? I have said it befor I will stop. I did stop for a while, then the mind finds another avenue to explore, its part of my pleasure, especialy when I find something so simple and cheap as cartridge mass that I can share . . .
I seem to think I have had this conversation befor with another member??
The basis of my system is good all be it budget at its component level . . . ie., the Croft amp is not budget but it is entry level in its range. The Rega P5 is not budget but the same up grade work could be done with a P3. The Sumiko cartridge was second hand and very cheap, almost warn out, even the re tip was not expensive considering its £250 cost and the level of improvement it imparted to the system . . . This was the start of the curent phase of upgrading, the re tip opend a new life to my system. . . . I am very lucky to be able to make the best of it.
However, the whole point of the thread, a majour sound improvement is possible for just 1p and a blob of BluTack.
I dont spend all my time tweaking, I spent 4 hours yesterday listening to music, 2 of them with my dear Hazel. I have listening most of this afternoon, inbetween answering the thread, curently listening as I speak to Robert Plant/Alison Krauss 'Raising Sand', befor that, Carrol Kidd, Pachelbel Magnificat, Organ Concert by James B. Welch and another Organ recording from Proprius, that is simply magnificent, even thought the sleeve is all in Sweedish!
You have watched my posts. Look at the the upgrades, individualy the most expensive was £125, most, considerably less, like £21 for a white Rega brive belt, every bit as good as a £150 Rega PSU in system. I had a failure with the acrylic platter, £80 wasted, the £25, 3mm acylic platter mat was a find! Time and patience is a factor, as is having a turntable, the essence of tuning a hifi system is having a TT . . . box changing gets a bit expensive and from what I read and know its a lottery?
The one item I cannot defend in my system is the PMC speakers and Foundation designer stands, they are left overs from my life 20+ years back.
. . . Side 4 of Raising Sand, phew, what superb sound, great base line, the speakers are either side of my computer desk, like a giant pair of headphones, the desk is shaking )))))))) :dance: Pull it up on Spotify PP, some excelent modern music.
Put in a nutshell PP, the essenc of my system is a TT . . . and some carfull upgrade selection and shrud buying over the past 2 years or so, anyone can do it . . .
CJSF :type:
BenLaw
Well-known member
BenLaw said:
Simple, cheap and effective . . . the response is generaly negative . . . why bother? . . . :? I shant again.
plastic penguin
Well-known member
Hope I didn't come across as negative. I was just making some pertinent points about maybe overplaying the tinkering aspect.
Please correct me if I'm wrong: If you're hearing better results by using blutak and a penny piece, why couldn't you just make the arm heavier?
Probably missing something fundamental.
Please correct me if I'm wrong: If you're hearing better results by using blutak and a penny piece, why couldn't you just make the arm heavier?
Probably missing something fundamental.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
plastic penguin said:
That's what he is doing with the shims, he's just suggesting the blu-tak and penny idea for other people who might not have access to the shims but he's being a responsible citizen by trying it out himself first, which is good of him.
plastic penguin
Well-known member
I've read a few of his recent threads and I'm getting a bit blurred with all the little idiosyncraises of TT tweaking. Perhaps I've been CJ'd...
Basically it isn't tweaking. The problem is that (and a bit hazy after all these years) the wrong arm mass for the compliance of a cartridge and v.v; means resonances from the cantilever enter the audible spectrum, degrading the sound. There's an article about it here http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/tonearmcartridge.html . You should check when you buy a replacement cartridge that it goes with the arm. something like the DL103 was designed in the time before light arms, so you often need to add weight.
If you're really keen to tweak, CJ, have a play with cartridge loading. Know zero about it myself, but if you check out other forums there's a heap on it. Apparently it can make a cartridge sound reallly ace.
Personally, stuff like that is why I gave up on turntables. Who wants all the stuffing around when all you need do is chuck in the silver disc and you're right?
If you're really keen to tweak, CJ, have a play with cartridge loading. Know zero about it myself, but if you check out other forums there's a heap on it. Apparently it can make a cartridge sound reallly ace.
Personally, stuff like that is why I gave up on turntables. Who wants all the stuffing around when all you need do is chuck in the silver disc and you're right?
Cartridge loading . . . is important, mm cartridges all have the industry standard 47ohm, and all mm phono amps use this standard. MC cartridges dont adhear to a standard load . . . so you are right AL, loading makes a diferance. Quality MC step up devices usualy give variable load facility, experiance tells me the base end is most affected. My own MC transformer step up has 3 options and therefor I can match my Sumiko's 100ohm requirement, one presumes that the boffins amoung us? will weild the soldering iron and put in resistors to the exact value required . . . :?
As fars as adding weight to the arm/cartridge is concerened. Going by the matching tabes I hve seen and infomation given to me directly by individuals for with I am most greatfull. I conclude my efforts are more towards the imovability of a mass, the more mass the firmer it will be, rather than compliance matching of the arm to cartridge, that window is fairly wide, keep within the paramiters and all is well.
So, a floating mass, ie arm, is less likly to move in relatio to the driven stylus and cataliever leaverage forces, the heaiver the floating mass is. Think about it . . . its like a drawing board, try to write on the boards and the boards is shaking, the image you draw will be inprecise, stop or reduce the boad movement and your picture will be clearer,
Its simple to impliment, proving the point. How far you go is then upto the individual.
Tunning a system of any kind can be blury, be it enginge, electronics, hifi, inveriably one goes just beyond ideal, you dont know where 'ideal' is untill you have gone past it. Then one comes back bit by bit to the sweet spot. These processe take time to do, time to consider the results, in the case of my system, many factors had to be considered both befor and after . . . I have said it befor, 'the sum of the parts is often greater than the whole', tuning arm mass is just one item of that sum, fortunatly it seems to be something that can be delt with in isolation?
CJSF
As fars as adding weight to the arm/cartridge is concerened. Going by the matching tabes I hve seen and infomation given to me directly by individuals for with I am most greatfull. I conclude my efforts are more towards the imovability of a mass, the more mass the firmer it will be, rather than compliance matching of the arm to cartridge, that window is fairly wide, keep within the paramiters and all is well.
So, a floating mass, ie arm, is less likly to move in relatio to the driven stylus and cataliever leaverage forces, the heaiver the floating mass is. Think about it . . . its like a drawing board, try to write on the boards and the boards is shaking, the image you draw will be inprecise, stop or reduce the boad movement and your picture will be clearer,
Its simple to impliment, proving the point. How far you go is then upto the individual.
Tunning a system of any kind can be blury, be it enginge, electronics, hifi, inveriably one goes just beyond ideal, you dont know where 'ideal' is untill you have gone past it. Then one comes back bit by bit to the sweet spot. These processe take time to do, time to consider the results, in the case of my system, many factors had to be considered both befor and after . . . I have said it befor, 'the sum of the parts is often greater than the whole', tuning arm mass is just one item of that sum, fortunatly it seems to be something that can be delt with in isolation?
CJSF
BenLaw
Well-known member
Don't worry CJ. As someone who obsesses about his system but makes no changes I think PP is struggling to understand someone who obsesses about it and makes frequent changes
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram