[78-L] Followup To Tonearm/Cartridge Mismatch - Compliance Remedies?

[beststuff4u at frontiernet.net]

Thanks to all who commented on my previous post. I definitely learned a great deal from your comments.

One thing I'm still confused about is that compliance ratings are assigned to cartridges, not to styli. If compliance is based on the rigidity of the stylus, why aren't the styli, instead of the cartridges, receiving the rating? Based on your comments I was able to find that a number of the Stanton 500 series cartridges can accept the same stylus, yet those cartridges compliance ratings vary from 10 to 20+. Wouldn't that change the resonance, which appears to be the main concern on selecting the appropriate cartridge,stylus combination?

Thank you.

Sherwin Cerini
Freezing in Rochester, NY



----- Forwarded Message -----
>From: "beststuff4u at frontiernet.net" <beststuff4u at frontiernet.net>
>To: "78-l at klickitat.78online.com" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com> 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 2:06 PM
>Subject: Tonearm/Cartridge Mismatch - Compliance Remedies?
> 
>
>
>Esteemed 78-l Members,
>
>
>
>I have acoustic records (1902-1910) that require a larger stylus (3.5 and 4.0 for starters and truncated elliptical styli). I purchased some 
customized ones that are for a Stanton 500 cartridge. The mismatch is 
caused by the fact that the tonearm is a 1970s light arm requiring a high-compliance cartridge such as the Shure M91-ED; the Stanton 500 series are all low-compliance cartridges.
>
>
>From what I've read, such a mismatch could well damage the records.
>
>
>Does anyone know of any way to compensate for the mismatch to avoid record damage?
>
>
>Thank you.
>
>
>Sherwin CeriniRochester, NY
>
>