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

[Nathan Coy]

Doug, et al,

I think I have probably complicated this conversation, sorry about that.

Ahh, that's good to hear on the cantilever, It does make more sense that
way. Now to beat a dead horse (a little) but it seems like the aftermarket
stylus companies would publish compliance ratings, So now I am curious what
they are. So to some extent cartridge compliance ratings are
inconsequential (probably especially with acoustic era?). Or is it say that
a company specs the stylus say as an n44 then the compliance should
probably be in that spec.?

I'll lay out now, thanks,

Nathan



On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Doug Pomeroy <audiofixer at verizon.net>wrote:

> The compliance ratings are based on the assumption that you buy a stylus
> that comes with a particular cartridge.  It is the cantilever to which the
> diamond is attached that determines the stiffness (compliance).
>
> And resonance has nothing to do with it.  If you need to track heavy, you
> obviously need a stiffer cantilever to keep the cartridge from riding on
> the disc surface!
>
> And, to play old acoustic records you'll want to track heavy (much heavier
> than for playing LPs!), so the Stanton styli and their cantilevers are fine
> for this.   Stop worrying about the arm - it doesn't care whether it is
> playing an LP or and old acoustic disc - but to get the tracking pressure
> just right (which can be done by eye!), you will probably need to adjust
> the counterweight on the arm.
>
> Doug Pomeroy
> Audio Restoration and Mastering Services
> 193 Baltic St
> Brooklyn, NY  11201-6173
> (718) 855-2650
> audiofixer at verizon.net
> ==================================================================
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 10:31:11 -0800 (PST)
> From: "beststuff4u at frontiernet.net" <beststuff4u at frontiernet.net>
> Subject: [78-L] Followup To Tonearm/Cartridge Mismatch - Compliance
>         Remedies?
> To: "78-l at klickitat.78online.com" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Message-ID:
>         <1387391471.47162.YahooMailNeo at web124506.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>