Tonearm thoughts and questions

I have (and have always had) tonearms of a modern sort. Which is to say, rigid, straight beams (each with headshell offset, of course) of the gimbaled (gimbled?) or unipivot varieties (in my case, various Rega's, Linn Ittoks, Ekos, Naim Aro - I once had a Morch as well - not sure what to call that one).

But there are many arms on the market that have a sort of "classic" appearance, and are often quite expensive. I have in mind the Ortofon RS309D for instance and the EMT 997 and other arms from EMT. These arms tend to have some sort of curve to the beam, and often have tenor able headshell a. These "classic" appearing arms are EXPENSIVE, for sure.

My question is, are these "classic" appearing arms state of the art in terms of sound quality? Is a detachable headshell a compromise? What about the curved, often uniform caliber beam?

I'm just asking - I don't know. . .

Judd

 

There are many ways to skin a cat and many approaches to tone arm design, like yourself I've mostly used straight arms with fixed headshells from Rega, SME, Roksan, Alphason, etc., the s shaped arms with detachable headshells I've used were often on cheaper Japanese decks or vintage arms past their best, recently I went entirely against all my current arms and bought a SME M2-12R, it's J shaped, it has a detachable headshell and it's very long. I bought the SME to go with a 1954 vintage Garrard 301 and obviously there was an element of getting an arm that matched the deck in looks, I also wanted a 12" arm which does limit the choices, I won't use the arm until the deck is restored so can't be absolute about the sound quality of the SME, but I definitely wouldn't have spent the large amount of money it cost if I didn't believe it was going to perform well, I can tell you that it may look like a vintage arm, but the construction is up to the usual current SME standards and to me surpasses that of their vintage offerings. I did have a long think about the detachable headshell, my conclusion was that all arms have breaks in the signal cable, this just adds an extra one, but if well done is it something that is going to have a perceivable impact on the sound, hopefully not and for how I eventually want to use the deck/arm the detachable headshell will be a great advantage allowing quick and easy cartridge swapping. So my opinion is that the current, Jelco, SME, Ortofon and other high quality "bent" arms with detachable headshells are all worth consideration at their price points and if they suit your needs may be the best choice, they may look old fashioned, but they use modern materials and the designs are greatly updated, however thirty plus years of using classic straight British arms with fixed headshells has definitely influenced me in that direction and I have no inclination to replace my SME IV, Roksan Artemiz, Michell Techno Arm or Rega RB 600 with anything that isn't straight and doesn't have an inconvenient fixed headshell.

 

I don't know if a detachable headshell is a compromise sonically, but I do know that it makes mounting a cartridge a joy! Not to mention that a detachable headshell can/will allow some azimuth adjustment ability.

 

Well, all "real world" tonearm designs are a compromise, designers pick their poison. Ideally, the tonearm would be extremely rigid and extremely massive so that all of the stylus movement is translated through the armature into the music signal, but vinyl records are neither flat or precisely center-punched, so the mass has to be realistic, and the designer has to choose between convenience or rigidity in the headshell area, you can't have an extremely rigid tonearm with a removable headshell. Anyway, it's all a synergistic relationship, tonearms with removable headshells tend to be more massive, so that helps get the most from some cartridges, while fixed headshell rigid tonearms get the best from other cartridge types.

 

Regarding the detachable headshell, I cannot argue with the ease it must be to change cartridges. And I don't worry so much about a break in the electrical contacts. Rather, I would be concerned about a lack of rigidity of the mechanical coupling.

Judd

 

This makes sense to me.

Judd

 

Please correct if Slick is wrong....but the curved arm is to redirect/cancel vibrations?
The straight arms are of a different construction to do the same?
Detachable head shells are about convenience? They add weight without audible advantages?

 

Exactly. That's a big deal in terms of leaving performance on the table.

 

I believe so.
I use a TD150 and its arm is
Definately retro.
Its arm tube is bent in a letter j
Format.
Its headshell is detachable,and to me,
An engineering wonder!
It is adjustable for tilt , and overhang.what is tilt?
Many if you will know.
A lot won,t.
The headshell can be inclined up or down in relation to the arm tube.
Instead of raising or lowering
Rear of arm to alter VTA you tilt the headshell, it's really clever.
The headshell also slides in a rail system to alter overhang!
Remember, this was 1965.
Someone really thought about this.
How does it sound?
Brilliant!
I had a real shock . I have owned a Linn
Ittok, Naim Aro and currently use an SME. 1V.
So I have used some expensive hardware!
TheThorens brocure said at the time
No severe resonances present!
Its a pleasure to change a cartridge.
Not the usual nightmare.

I think a lot of modern turntable users
Would question whether we have really
Progressed .

 

A well-designed and manufactured straight arm (with headshell offset) will sound wonderful.
A poorly-designed one will be horrible (and there are a lot of these on cheap record players).

A well-designed and manufactured S-shaped arm will sound wonderful.
A poorly-designed one will be horrible (and there are a lot of these on cheap record players).

A well-designed and manufactured J-shaped arm will sound wonderful.
A poorly-designed one will be horrible (and there are a lot of these around).

A well-designed and manufactured tonearms with non-detachable headshell can sound wonderful.
Well-designed and manufactured with detachable quality headshells can also sound wonderful.

Put a well-designed and manufactured tonearm with a poor-quality headshell and/or cartridge, or a cartridge that does not suit the design, or put it on a poor-quality turntable, and it will sound horrible. Or have a well-matched tonearm system on a good turntable and don't have the arm set up correctly - poor sound again.

There are so many variables, and each designer/manufacturer will have their own philosophy and compromises, that the only way to tell is to listen to the different combinations.

 

I replaced an Audioquest PT-9 (straight/fixed) with a Sumiko Premier MMT (S-shaped/removable) once. Both sounded great with a Shure V15 V SAS. Not much diff.

 

Seeing as this thread has been revived I'll add that's I've been spending some quality time with my SME M2-12R and while engineering wise you can see where the extra money goes on the SME IV I'm not so sure you can hear where it goes, at the old price I'd say the M2-12R was great value, the new prices open it up to fiercer competition, but I think I'd buy one again if it suited a future project, even at the raised price and cartridge alignment is a joy.

 

I think straight arms are stiffer and better at surpressing vibrations. Im not sure but are they not just S shaped to allow detachable headshells for conveniance as you said? They do add one more connection in the chain which theoretically worsens the signal.

 

I have often scratched my head on this issue - i think the detachable headshell’s Main theoretical disadvantage is not the extra electrical connection, but rather the extra mechanical one. But it practice, I just don’t know.

Justin

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "classic" appearing arms.... But, there are inherent advantages and disadvantages to all these different design approaches -- S-shaped arms can perhaps break up internal standing wave structural resonances in a way that straight arms can't, but typically the have greater mass for a given pivot to stylus length; detachable headshells have the advantage of easy swapping of carts, and, depending on the method of attachment, may be a means of adjusting azimuth; but they can be less rigid and provide a point for internal vibrations to bounce back from. Basically, I'd say, like anything in design, there are pluses and minuses of different approaches and the specifics of each particular arm's implementation is probably most important.

 

I agree. There are good and poor implementations of straight/curved designs, as there are compromises made with cheap materials and no-compromise approaches. A good arm is a good arm, a bad arm is a bad arm.