I’ve run across some information that suggests the compliance of the SS ‘lowest compliance’ (Sussurro, Paua) cartridges is actually much higher than stated by SS - 20-22 um/mN vs. the 10 shown on the site. Anyone owning these low compliance carts measure the resonance frequency to see if it matches the theoretical?
Any Soundsmith cart owners measure their resonance?
- Thread starter tony22
- Start date
Tony,
Edit-Soundsmith does not specify whether the compliance they show is static or dynamic. If static, then it is generally about 1/2 of the 10Hz dynamic compliance - https://nirvanasound.com/wp-content/uploads/tech-tips/The Compliance of a Cartridge and the Resonant Frequency of the Tonearm Mark.pdf
Edit-Fremer reviewed the Paua MK-II-ES and measured it - https://trackingangle.com/equipment...th-s-paua-mk-ii-phono-cartridge-will-move-you
Neil
Last edited:
The static compliance cannot be less than the dynamic. The cantilever is damped with elastomer. The dynamic compliance takes into account the vibration velocity and damping, which will reduce this amplitude by a certain amount (damping coefficient) compared to the static deflection. And the dynamic will always be smaller. This can be seen on manufacturers' websites, which specify both compliance in the cartridge specifications. For example, Audio-Technica.
The article in your link says:
Published figures of C coming from Japan usually are measured at 100 Hz and are Dynamic. So to get a simple standard number we can take a Japanese specification and multiply by a factor of 1.5-2 to get similar to a 10Hz specification. Figures of C coming from USA often are static values, so they should be halved.
If you write it down:
Cdyn10=1,5-2 x Cdyn100. Cdyn10 = ½ Cstat.
But these are all very conditional coefficients.
You have to measure them.
Mr. Fremer measured on a tonearm with an effective mass of 60 grams and got a resonance of 8Hz.
Here mr. P. Schüller measured a similar compliance cartridge - Zephyr mk 3. On a tonearm with an effective mass of 11.2 grams and got a resonance of 7.6. With these values dynamic compliance at 10Hz will be in the neighborhood of 20.
Test Soundsmith Zephyr III – MI-Abtaster auf neuestem Stand - LowBeats
Das Soundsmith Zephyr III ist der neueste Abtaster aus der Moving-Iron-High-Output-Linie der Amerika
www.lowbeats.de
According to my own measurements Paua mk2 ES and Zephyr mk3, the dynamic compliance at 10Hz is 20- 22cu.
Paua mk2 es (12,2g) on Korf TA-SF11R tonearm (28g) gives resonance at 5,5Hz.
Paua mk2 es (12,2g) on SME3012R tonearm (14g) gives resonance at 6,5Hz.
Zephyr mk3(10,2) on SME3012R (14g) tonearm gives resonance at 7,5Hz.
Zephyr µ3(10,2) on Korf TA-SF11R (28g) tonearm gives resonance at 6,5Hz.
Effective masses of tonearms are given including original headshells with wiring.
In all cases screws of 0.5 grams each were used.
The measurements were made on a Hi-Fi-News record, and then I further refined them on the STR-100.
The Paua passes all trackability tracks from the Ortofon record on both tonearms.
I can post a video of the cartridges on the HiFiNews record.
My cartridges don't match the compliance specified on the website, neither if it's a dynamic 10Hz nor static compliance.
I wanted to gather information if this is only affecting my cartridges and if they are ok.
Illia
Stand corrected.
From Soundsmith's site the Paua MKII-ES weighs 12.2-gm. If we assume 1.0-gm for fasteners, for a 60-g effective weight tonearm and resonance of 8Hz, the calculated cartridge resonance would be 5.4Hz using the formula many use for tonearm resonance =159.24/SQRT((arm-gms+cartridge-gms )*cartridge-Hz). And if the same formula is applied to the Lowbeats data, it calculates to 20Hz. Which is right?
The resonance equation is a very simple equation and trying to use to predict the cartridge resonance is subject to error - https://korfaudio.com/blog32.
Personally, I think this calculator may be the better predictor - https://korfaudio.com/calculator.
After all is said and done, is there a problem with your cartridges unlikely. But you can always ask Soundsmith if their compliance #'s are static or 10Hz dynamic, just for edification.
According to measurements of the resonant frequency by Fremer and recalculation of the compliance, it is С=5.41 μm/mN.
According to Zephyr's measurements of the resonant frequency of P. Schüller from Lowbeats and recalculation of the compliance, the result is С=19 μm/mN.
According to my measurements and calculations the compliance for Paua is 20 and 22 and for Zephyr - 15 and 18 μm/mN.
The specification says 10μm/mN.
Nothing matches the spec sheet.
So I have a question, and what is correct of these, and then what about the rest?
The specification says 10μm/mN.
If you matched the cartridge to the tonearm using the values in the specifications, there would be resonances:
In the case of the Fremer - f= 159.25/sqrt(73.2*10) = 5.88Hz, not 8 as measured from the record.
In the case of P. Schüller - f=159.25/sqrt(22.8*10) = 10.55Hz, not 7.6 as measured on the record.
In my case for the Korff and Paua tonearm - f=159.25/sqrt(41.2*10) = 7.85Hz, not 5.5 as measured on the record.
What's wrong, the specs or 3 different measurements.
I know Alexey's opinion on this issue and on the compliance of low SS cartridges. I can't cite it, but it doesn't agree with the specifications either.
I wrote several letters to Peter Ledermann and attached the video. I asked him why the cartridges behave differently than they are supposed to according to the specifications.
I have not received a reply yet. But I hope I get it.
The most accurate of the measurements is the test record check for resonance and the measure of the Tonearm Effective Mass which should be easily calculated http://www.cartchunk.org/audiotopics/ToneArmMechanics.pdf, although I have had tonearms were the OEM stated effective mass was questionable. That being said, that leaves the resonance calculation method (formula) which is at best rudimentary and why should we assume the resonance calculation method to be correct?
Even more fundamental, if the cartridge compliance was soft, under the prescribed VTF, the cartridge(s) would be riding very low on the record and that would be obvious. I have two medium compliance Soundsmith cartridges (Carmen & Boheme) and there is an obvious difference in the how soft they are compared to my Paua and Sussurro, but their VTF is ~1.5-gms.
In the listed cases where Kuzma, Rega, Korff, SME tonearms are used, their values of effective masses are not in doubt. These tonearms cannot be classified as questionable.
It is not the formula for calculating resonance that we are discussing.
I have a heavy and a medium-heavy tonearm. I looked at the Paua specification on the SS website and it lists compliance 10 and "for Tone ArmMass (grams) 7-29". The Korf with an effective mass of 28 satisfies the conditions.
I bought the cartridge. Put it in and it is not behaving normally.
I took test records and measured the resonance. Got 5.5Hz.
Recorded a video, sent the manufacturer a question. Why the cartridge, which is listed as low with a coplanance of 10, on the tonearm, which meets the conditions of the specification, measures the resonance of 5.5Hz.
On the forum I asked who had what data and looked at measurements from reviewers. The data is different and does not coincide with the specification.
Is it at a low level?
This is the easiest option I have. The headshell with screws and wiring weighs 8.2 grams.
Just an observation - your headshell, like many are multi-piece assemblies. Any play in the assembly, or its mechanical coupling to the tonearm regardless of how small may affect the overall resonance. The Korf https://korfaudio.com/ta-sf11r effective weight is 19-gm w/o headshell and 29-gms with their HS-A02 headshell https://korfaudio.com/hs-a02 which is 13-gm but is a one-piece design. Depending on the heashell you try, 'maybe' you want to reach out to Korf and see if you can try their HS-A02 headshell.
I know all this information and understand what I am measuring.
The photo shows Paua on a CME3012R tonearm with SME headshell.
On the Korff tonearm, I have their HS-A02 headshell installed.
But I also tried Korf tonearm with SME headshell and SME3012R+ Korf HS-A02 too. I sent Peter a video of different combinations.
I have no doubt that the Soundsmith cartridges I have in my possession do not meet the specifications in terms of compliance.
I don't know if it's just my cartridges that are different or all of them. That's the question.
Because if it's all ss cartriges, then it's just another one manufacturer with misleading information in the specs. Many manufacturers have this. And it's common knowledge. But on Soundsmith, it just struck me. I haven't come across any such information about them. So I trusted it.
But if it's just my cartridges that don't match, then I need to do something about them.
If you would measure your cartridges and provide the results here, it would be of value to my question.
To follow up on the story.
I mounted an MSL Eminent EX cartridge on a Korff tonearm with its native headshell (total effective weight 28). The cartridge weighs 9.5 grams and has a declared compliance of 10cu.
Using the same method and records as with the Soundsmith, I got a resonance of around 8Hz.
When recalculating, according to the measured resonance, we get the MSL compliance of around 10cu. Just as declared by the manufacturer.
With my Phasemation pp-200 (10,3 grams) under the same conditions the resonance was also about 8Hz. And we also get a compliance of around 10 cu., although the manufacturer declared 8,5. It is a deviation, but not in 2 times as in Sanudsmith.
8,5 or 10 are still cartridges of low compliance, which behave normally with heavy tonearms.
In the case of my Soundsmith Paua mk2 es, with the same declared low compliance 10cu, the resonance is 5.5Hz.... That's no way a low-compliance cartridge... My Shure V15 V-mr has a 5Hz resonance on a Korff tonearm, but at least the Shure has a damping brush.
I still don't know if my cartridge is in good working order, if I should send it to Soundsmith for inspection etc... Because I still haven't received a reply from Peter Ledermann and from Soundsmith. I wrote them another email to the address on the website.
I don't understand why Soundsmith refuses me technical support for their product.
I mounted an MSL Eminent EX cartridge on a Korff tonearm with its native headshell (total effective weight 28). The cartridge weighs 9.5 grams and has a declared compliance of 10cu.
Using the same method and records as with the Soundsmith, I got a resonance of around 8Hz.
When recalculating, according to the measured resonance, we get the MSL compliance of around 10cu. Just as declared by the manufacturer.
With my Phasemation pp-200 (10,3 grams) under the same conditions the resonance was also about 8Hz. And we also get a compliance of around 10 cu., although the manufacturer declared 8,5. It is a deviation, but not in 2 times as in Sanudsmith.
8,5 or 10 are still cartridges of low compliance, which behave normally with heavy tonearms.
In the case of my Soundsmith Paua mk2 es, with the same declared low compliance 10cu, the resonance is 5.5Hz.... That's no way a low-compliance cartridge... My Shure V15 V-mr has a 5Hz resonance on a Korff tonearm, but at least the Shure has a damping brush.
I still don't know if my cartridge is in good working order, if I should send it to Soundsmith for inspection etc... Because I still haven't received a reply from Peter Ledermann and from Soundsmith. I wrote them another email to the address on the website.
I don't understand why Soundsmith refuses me technical support for their product.
There a re many things involved here.
Your measurements right only when;
- If tonearm bearings are backlash free and there is no additional resonances due to headshell or counter weight to interact with measurements. (I haven’t put my hands on a Korf tonearm but I’ve seen many tonearms unable to deal with a cartridge reading low frequencies)
- If rubber damper is in good condition and not starting deteriorate. (It happens more often than we think)
- If manufacturer managed to install cantilever up to the right amount of tension IOT achieve specified compliance. (That rarely happens in my opinion)
So, narrowing it down to compliance may not be the right thing. It can also be tonearm or rubber damper itself.
I agree with you and am trying to determine the cause.
My tonearms are in excellent condition.
I have tried combinations with different headshells on them.
But most importantly, the other cartridges work as they should, no problems. And they behave as expected.
That leaves, in my opinion, two options.
1. The cartridge has a malfunction. For whatever reason. Wrongly assembled, worn, broken, defective. Anything from the outside before me.
2. There is nothing wrong with the cartridge and it does not match the specifications.
Especially since I have two different Soundsmith cartridges, and both show resonance far less than expected. But I don't rule out that both of them are broken.
I thought Soundsmith was the best placed to answer these questions. But they still haven't. I've spent money on their products and I can't get technical support. With so many good reviews about them it seems strange to me.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |