Fantastic Service by Mehran Farahmand of Sora Sound
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Whether rigid or not, any shim placed between a cartridge and tonearm is audible. In my experience, shims tend to degrade sound quality more often than they improve it. I’m skeptical that 3D-printed plastic, even when marketed as rigid, can match the acoustic performance of modern materials like titanium, carbon fiber, steel, or magnesium used in tonearms and cartridges.
I believe the more accurate claim would be: inserting ANY material between the cartridge and tonearm will change the mechanical impedance between the cartridge and its support (the tonearm). It is not possible for any cartridge designer to anticipate the mechanical impedance between their own cartridge and the customer's headshell since they have no control over the material and design of the headshell used. A change in mechanical impedance can be audible (for better or worse).
To your point, @mtemur, adding any additional body to an assembly reduces overall rigidity, even if that inserted body is diamond. In other words, the fewer material joins in an assembly, the better - all other things being equal - when aiming for high rigidity. As a result, adding a shim is the wrong way to go.
HOWEVER, not all design elements weigh equally on our listening experience. I am convinced - as are my clients - that introducing our corrective shims to hit optimal playback angles results in far better performance than not having a corrective shim at all.
When a client has less than 1 degree SRA/VTA error, I offer them the prospect that they could get by without a corrective shim and instead hit their targeted corrective angles using the WallyReference single blades. Some take me up on the offer, but most cartridges need much more correction than this.
J.R., this discontinuity affecting rigidity is even significant in an armwand like mine, 5" total length, a flat, light paddle maybe 2" thick, weighing just a few tens of grams, in a low pressure air bearing linear tracking setup?
Because the change from solid shims to this floaty or sprung Houdini, is absolutely superior.
What I *can't* compare is my armwand without shims or Houdini, since I've dropped from 12mm high ResoPoints on the platter supporting my LPs to my new 6mm combined Acoustic Revive RT50 silicate mat/Teac Washi paper sub mat combination.
Well, one problem is solved but perhaps another is created by offering so many body joins, only screw-tight pivot at the cartridge and an assembly that isn't terribly rigid on torsional stress. Is it a net benefit? Probably so, yes. Ideal? No.
Such a clever system, overhang, azimuth and sra are quick adjustable. And changing the cartridge is even quicker. I never had any problems.second avantage you create higher mass tonarm zyx love that.
I don't doubt it sounds superior to have the compliant material in there. What I am asserting is that such a case is a direct result of ameliorating a problem that is stemming elsewhere in the system and you are getting a NET benefit but that it isn't actually a fix for the real problem. It is treating the symptom of the problem.
Now, if you LIKE large, ethereal soundstages at the expense of tighter imaging, additional inner detail, transient impact and bass authority, then you will want to keep doing just what you are doing. However, this is not likely to be an accurate representation of what is in the groove. What is happening is the supporting mechanism (tonearm & cartridge body) is slopping about in the micron and submicron range in sympathy with the groove content with respect to the cantilever pivot point (which is THE primary locus in the entire turntable system). This is mechanical distortion *defined* and CAN give you the ethereal, open sensation but there is quite a cost of omission that isn't easy to notice...until you get it back.
I think you'd be generally horrified, lol, by my tonearm. It's effectively a DIY/enthusiast design made flesh to sell a few hundred in its decade-long commercial existence, that is predicated on an excellent idea and *pretty* good real world application, but nowhere near as cutting edge or absolutely accurate as the high end arms we've seen over the last few years.
I'm unsure whether the flexy Houdini is almost synergistic with the floaty Terminator arm.
Or what the Houdini is conjuring up (pun intended) is another level of subjective over an already subjective outcome.
Put it this way, Marc Gomez of SAT would look at my Terminator, and look for the nearest bottle of spirits to drown his misery in, or window to jump out of.
Once you find happiness in your system, often a good action to take is to tune out the rest of the world - including me! - lest you begin to chew on "the opportunities" for improving your performance which have the undisputed effect of ratcheting up our dissatisfaction level!
Haha, well you can reveal that "can't live without, maybe can't live with" idea you've dangled my way.
One thing about stuff that "can't/shouldn't work" but does.
I've received the biggest flack from audiophiles over the Arya Audio Airblades. Including from friends who are ADAMANT that they're surplus to requirements or even worse, impossible to be an advance.
Yet here I am, two years into their install, finding them totally indispensable.
Am I at fault? My ears? My Zu spkrs? The Airblades?
Or those criticising?
Last edited:
Similar threads
