Didn't SS sell headshells of their brand several years ago? I don't know if they still do or not. Maybe ask them what headshells they recommend for your cartridge.
I was kind of looking around a few months ago, and it seemed like possibly their headshell is discontinued, at least based on the fact that it doesn’t seem to be very available. Their website isn’t the best in terms of being updated with product information, so the fact that they still have a page for it as a product might not mean much.
Even though I already ordered the Ortofon, I'd order that just to see/hear how it compares and to have a spare. But I don't think my tonearm will accept the bottom pin, pretty sure it's top only.
It will take the two-pin no problem. The Turntable Labs headshell is good especially for the price, kind of a poor man's LP Gear Zupreme or HS25 since those are no longer made or reasonably affordable. Adjustable azimuth at $30 is tough to beat. Good that you skipped the LH2000 - rather cheap-feeling for the price. I even got one at a significant discount and still returned it. No experience with the 4000 but hopefully it feels a little more substantial. It is certainly on the heavy side for the 1200. You don't need spend a fortune to get a decent headshell.
Now I'm nervous. I think the LH-4000 is identical to the 2000, just has azimuth adjustment. Thankfully I have the Music Direct return policy so if it does look like a cheap turd I can return it.
looks like they added 1.1 g for fasteners 5.6 + 7.6 = 13,2, they use 14.3, delta 1.1 12 + 7.6 = 19.6, they use 20.7, delta 1.1 12 is a reasonable number for eff mass, I've calculated it a few ways. Deduct ~ 7.6 x (20/23)^2 = 5.7 for the headshell Net ~ 12 - 5.7 = 6.3 Different HS hs wt x (20/23)^2 + 6.3 ~ new eff mass If new HS 12 g 12 x (20/23)^2 + 6.3 ~ 15.4 for cart add ~ wt x (22/23)^2
Not entirely true: These are heavier than normal brass bolts I got on Ebay -somewhat similar to the Soundsmith bolts. The Zupreme line of headshells are based on Jelco designs and come in 10 and 12 gram weights. Yamamoto makes some nice heaadshells. The effective mass of the arm is a little perplexing and they probably don't put a bullet on a number because of the removable headshell I guess -it makes me wonder if a similar tonearm like a Jelco or other s-shaped has the EM listed.
But they used to specify the EM, below is the Mk5 spec, that's why most assume it is still 12g since the tonearm is pretty much the same. On some of their tables they even went to the more accurate approach of listing it with a 6g cartridge so the effect of counterweight position was taken better into account ...
Thanks!! I overlooked the fasteners, which is ironic since the main reason I was thinking so much about it was the fasteners lol. Also thank you for this, I'll screenshot it so I remember. And technically, if I use different fasteners, I'd deduct 8.3, then add the weight of the new fasteners to the weight of the new HS (just thinking out loud). Deduct ~ 7.6 x (20/23)^2 = 5.7 for the headshell Net ~ 12 - 5.7 = 6.3
One more for you guys... I have a Feickert protractor. With the cartridge pulled all the way to the front as far as it'll allow, it still isn't close enough to any of the dots to get the correct alignment, it's about 1/16" away from any of the dots. But the plastic gauge has the cartridge set back roughly 1/8" away from being all the way forward. I've not had this issue before and I've used that Feickert on quite a few different turntables. I reached out to the tech at Music Direct, and he said to just use the plastic gauge. Obviously I'm a little bit of a perfectionist with regards to these things, so I'm curious why. The tech said the plastic gauge is a Stevenson alignment; if that's actually true, why is the Feickert protractor so different? I positively have the Feickert set correctly.
The Technics alignment is close to Stevenson with the DIN inner groove radius specification, while the Feickert uses the IEC inner groove radius, so Feickert Stevenson will have overhang almost 1mm longer than Technics, and the offset angle will be a little different too. Obviously 1/8" (or actually you are saying 3/16") is much bigger than 1mm, that's a big discrepancy. There was another Technics Feickert user here that reported quite a discrepancy between the protractor and the jig, and shared some pictures (though unfortunately not visible now), sounds kind of like your case ... Cartridge Alignment - The Technics way SL1200 SL1210 Some have also reported that a protractor generated with the Technics spec does not match with the jig alignment, there is a big thread here, it is only a few users reporting the issue, most find it matches very closely, so that problem is unresolved, may just be due to a tolerance stackup in the tonearm build and/or mounting.
That thread is a good read, makes me want to double check my anti-skate as well. My channel balance sounds good, and I did set it per Technics instructions but double checking with the runout method would be interesting. What's also interesting is that I also have a Soundsmith Carmen cart, and the Feickert will work for that one. But something about my Sussurro geometry makes the Feickert not work. Edit: Being completely honest, I don't hear much difference when I change the tracking force.
Yes but the Soundsmith EZ mount fasteners can be quite a bit heavier, that's what they are. It comes with 4 different weights for the pairs of mounting screws so you can adjust mass. Fine tuning it using those made a HUGE difference on my Music Hall.
@Davey, when I do Peter Ledermann's method using the runout to set anti-skate, my Technics anti-skate dial is at 1.0. If I use the Technics manual, I should be at 2.1, which would be the same as my tracking force. For what it's worth, I think I'll leave it at 1.0.
I’d take anything Lederman says to the bank. Regarding overhang,….Korf audio has an excellent blog that covers most things alignment. Now I know many love to obsess about things and I’m particular about a few, but he makes a very good case about why a couple(overhang, compliance) are just not as hairshirt as some make them out to be. If nothing else, it’s very interesting reading.
Korf is great, that's my go-to compliance calculator. And I agree about Ledermann, at 1.0 (per his way of setting anti-skate) the highs are a tad smoother. It's not night and day, I had to A/B with my digital to hear the difference between 2.0 (the Technics way) and 1.0 setting Ledermann's way using the runout.
Nothing that blew my hair back. But I don't have much hair anymore and it's been a while since I heard them. I remember them being really expensive, and IMO for the money there were better options. But obviously that's my opinion based on hearing them a few years ago.
That's a great question. IIRC Technics speakers weren't known as being Hifi in the 80s. I remember them being pretty average, they were probably comparable to Kenwood and Fisher speakers of the era. But possibly they had something phenomenal and I never saw or heard them.
