SL-1200 + Zu DL-103 = which headshell?

Quick update - for those who saw my previous thread (see link below), I've decided to stick with the SL-1200!

http://stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=147780

Now, all of this recent talk about the Zu DL-103 really convinced me to do two things:

1) get a decent phono stage
2) try the Zu!

So, I just bought a used Dynavector P-75 (first version), and I plan on ordering the Zu shortly!

The question is, with the stock SL-1200 arm, which headshell should I use to mount the Zu? The stock Technics? Or, would I get better results with, say, a Sumiko HS-12 or LP Gear Zupreme? I ask because these two particular headshells have more mass than the stock Technics, and I'm a relative noob when it comes to compliance, arm mass, etc.

Please educate me!

 

More mass wouldn't hurt, just make sure you can balance it properly on the other end. The stock '1200 headshell is quite servicable but there are better options for sure.

 

Unless you are willing to spend a lot of time experimenting and tinkering.... with no assurances that you will eventually get acceptable results, start with the stock SL-1200 headshell. Later, if you are not satisfied with the results, you can always try another option.

However, my educated guess is that you will not be able to improve on the stock headshell.

HG

 

From all that I've read, good choices with both the Dynavector phono stage and Zu cartridge.

I'm sure it depends on the cartridge - some can't handle the extra mass - but based on the results I had with the Sumiko HS-12, it's superior to the stock headshell. Both my Audio-Technica AT440MLa and AT150MLX performed better in the HS-12. Bass and mid-range sounded less congested as judged from A/B comparisons of hi-rez digital transfers. Tracking ability was measurably improved. And the azimuth adjustment offered by the HS-12 is a nice bonus. It should be noted that I was using the KAB tonearm damper when doing all comparisons.

I have an HS-12 that I was going to sell on eBay but reconsidered because I like it that much and want to have it on hand. I'm currently using a lighter but equally rigid Audio-Technica headshell.

 

http://www2.117.ne.jp/~y-s/head-shell-HS-1A,HS-1As-eng.html

 

If you feel you need the extra mass at the headshell, here's a simple option: Technics makes a small weight that can be added - in fact I think it's included with the SL-1200mk2 when you buy it new, it's something like 3 or 3.5 grams as I recall. I simply added this weight to the stock headshell when I mounted my Dynavector 17D3 which is a light cart, in the range where Technics suggests adding the weight. Works like a charm, costs nothing. I'm sure now 12 people will chime in with all kinds of theoretical reasons why you shouldn't do this and should just get a heavier headshell, but the audible results are stunning, so I'm sticking.

On the other hand if your cart is in the weight range where you don't NEED the added mass, then I'd skip all this and just mount it in the standard headshell.

Read your SL-1200mk2 owner's manual - they list the cutpoint for cartridge weight at which they suggest you would need additional mass added (the weight I used, or a heavier headshell) - this will tell you whether this is even an issue for your cart. If your cart is heavy enough to not need the extra mass already, why go against what the table/tonearm manufacturer recommends by adding MORE mass?

 

Hey Matt,

I figured the Sumiko headshell might improve things when using carts like the AT's you mention. But I'm more concerned about the increased mass that the Zu cart has over both the AT's and the stock DL-103, and if adding a heavier headshell like the Sumiko or Zupreme will simply be too much:

- AT440MLa = 6.5g
- Denon DL-103 = 8.5g
- Zu DL-103 = 13.6g

- Technics headshell = 7.5g
- Zupreme headshell = 12g

- Technics effective tonearm mass (including stock headshell) = 12g

Again, I'm admittedly ignorant when it comes to matters of mass and compliance and how these relate to tonearm specs, so I am hoping you guys can school me a bit so that I can make a better-informed decision.

(FWIW, the pics from the TONE review of the Zu show it mounted to the stock Technics headshell, but the tweak-y side of me says to explore other headshell options!)

 

There is the Technics with the 4 grams screw-on weight.

Available in black which was made for the M3D (discontinued) or the silver one made for the M5G.

Ortofon have a new headshell call the SH-4 which weight 9.4 grams.

Beware the 3 grams spacer/weight is ferrous metal = magnetic, definitely a bad idea with moving coil of any type.

Thanks

 

If the Zu cartridge is 13.6 grams, then I think you really don't need any added mass on the headshell.

First of all, Technics doesn't recommend adding mass to the headshell or going with a heavier headshell unless the cartridge's mass is under 6 grams. You're MORE than fine just using the stock Technics headshell with the Zu, since it weighs in at 13 grams, well over their cut point.

Another way to look at this is to calculate the resonance point of the cart/tonearm combo. There's an equation that you can use to approximate this:

Resonant Frequency = 1000/[6.28*square root (M*C)]. Where M is the mass of the arm and cartridge and C is the compliance of the cartridge.

Plugging your cart and tonearm values in (you didn't list compliance for your cart but I looked it up, appears to be 5), I calculate resonant frequency of 14 with the stock headshell, which is just at the edge of what is desirable (most people suggest 10-14 is ideal, and a few even more stringently aim for 9-11).

If you were to go with a heavier headshell like the Zupreme, what would happen? I'm betting "not too much you'd hear," since I calculate a resonant frequency then of 13 - so maybe you get a little better performance but that's really not much of a change, and again you could do the same simply by adding the weight to the stock headshell.

Ultimately this is theoretical and reality is reality - you need to get a test record to actually measure what your resonant frequency is when you get everything hooked up. I for example calculated a frequency of around 9-10 for my rig but the actual frequency was around 12 based on the test record.

Also to give you diversity of opinions about the KAB tonearm fluid damper for the Technics, I no longer use mine. It does make some noticeable changes to the sound and may help out carts that need it, but my feeling is that the better my cart has gotten, the less it helps and the more it screws things up. The performance of my AT150MLX seemed to benefit from the KAB damper - tighter bass, more realistic highs, but this is a cart that has a little tendency to brightness on the highs and a little looseness in the bass - while with my Dynavector 17D3, the damping just ruined the effortless high end extension and fluidity of the cart, really messing up things like cymbal decay and transients and sense of air/space.

So my advice is to try out your new cart with the stock SL1200mk2 first. If you hear problems with resonance, then add the damper, if you don't, then don't. And make sure that if you do add the damper, you then at some point go back and re-listen/compare with it removed. Sometimes memory is faulty and you assume a tweak makes an improvement - then you go back and compare realize it actually may not have been better, just "different." This was my experience with damping and the Dynavector - I'm really glad I took the time to go back and compare again without the damper as I think it was seriously limiting the performance of the cart.

 

Ah there it is! As I predicted...only took a couple posts to get the first of what I'm sure will be many reasons not to use the Technics headshell weight!

Seriously, I think this is a theoretical concern that is a non-issue in actual practice. My Dynavector sounds fantastic mounted with the added weight, there really is no harm done.

 

I'm concerned about that too. Because the Zu is much heavier than either of the other carts, I wouldn't bother with the more massive Sumiko or Zupreme headshells. I'd stick with the stock headshell. Of course, there's nothing with experimenting but I'd really give the stock configuration a thorough evaluation first.

 

This is excellent advice. Every cartridge is different. Listen to everything stock first and then change one thing and see if it's better. Go back and forth. Then add another change to the equation and see if that's better. And so on. It can be time consuming but it's also a lot of fun and rewarding if you're into that sort of thing.

 

Thanks so much for all the info and advice. I think I get it now.

I pulled out the manual for the SL-1200, and it seems to state that the maximum mass of the cart/headshell should be 20.5g. And anything over 17.5g requires the use of the screw-in auxiliary weight to the back of the arm.

So, with the stock Technics headshell and the Zu (with mounting screws), the total mass of the cart/heashell = 21.7g. This is actually 1.2g over the maximum recommended mass in the Technics manual! I'm not too concerned about this, however, as the TONE review of the Zu clearly states that the AT arm (Techincs clone) did balance fine with the counterweight moved to the very rear of the arm.

Obviously, mounting the Zu to a heavier headshell like the Zupreme would be overkill for the stock arm/counterweight. So, it looks like the stock Technics headshell is definitely the way to go with the Zu.

Just out of curiosity, anybody know if there is a larger counterweight available for the Technics arm? Any drawbacks to using a larger counterweight?

 

I don't think there is a heavier counterweight, just the auxiliary add-on. But I know some guys buy a spare counterweight (about $18) and glue metal washers to the back end. I can't say I'd do that but, who knows, it seems to work fine for them. The auxiliary counterweight would be my first choice.

 

Here are bigger auxiliary counterweight.

http://www.musicfield.jp/item/18882

Good for SPU and Fidelity Research and more

Thanks

 

Thanks for the info. However, the link you provided appers to be an expired auction listing (from 2005). Do you know if Technics still sells this SH-1200W-S set of auxiliary weights in Japan?

(My guess is no, as multiple internet searches turned up almost nothing matching that Technics model number. )