Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Analog System - matching cartridges with tonearms ... and other stuff

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Analog System - matching cartridges with tonearms ... and other stuff

    I wrote a post on the tonearm-cartridge interface, didn't care for it and deleted it. But that topic continues to swirl around in my head. And the more I thought about it, the broader it got as I kept asking myself more questions without having answers. So I'm gonna try again and hope to learn something or maybe we discover something together. There's a lot of experience here.

    As we, the vinylistas, know, the Analog System has so many moving parts and so many variables that inevitably we fall back to talking about it in semi-maneageable chunks which themselves turn out having many moving parts and variables. It's crazy. Maybe that's why it's so much fun. By 'Analog System' I mean the components making up an analog front-end: the Turntable, Tonearm, Cartridge, Cables/Wiring, the Phonostage (and its many possible configurations), what I'll label generically as Energy Management (think vibrations, distortion etc.) and perhaps Tools and Techniques that support us in our efforts. At least a forum's worth.

    We spend a lot of time on each of these 'areas' yet ultimately we all want the same thing (I think): a synergistic Analog System - one whose contributing parts together yield sonic happiness,(what I call the audiophile miracle, a kind of sonic transubstantiation whereby metal, glass and wire turn into joy) - musical bliss if you will - however you want to define those. And yet over the last 60 years we find only a few definitive guidelines to draw on consistently in putting such a system together. I'm hoping we can coax some of those forward in this thread.

    With that as prelude, I'll start at my original topic: matching tonearms and cartridges. How can we tell if Cartridge X and Tonearm A will work well together?

    -- We talk about 'arm-cartridge matching, for example 'arm effective mass and cartridge compliance. If certain cartridges realize their potential more fully in certain arms or arm types, how well are we users positioned to make such assessment beyond trying a bunch of cartridges in a bunch of 'arms and reporting to one another? If certain cartridges are more broadly compatible in more different 'arms, how can we know why or at least which ones? There are a few short threads here on this topic (and probably others I've missed):

    Calculating Tonearm Resonance
    What's involved in tonearm/cartridge matching?
    Tonearm Topology in the Bearing Straits

    Myles writes frequently about the importance of how energy (resonance) is handled by the cartridge-tonearm interface. He argues that some cartridges (Lyras for example) are designed specifically to pass (drain) their excess energy into the tonearm and about the extent that cartridge performance (good or bad) can depend on what the cartridge expects of the tonearm.

    If I'm gonna spend $5k - $15k on a cartridge, I really want to know before hand if it will work well in my 'arm. Heck, any amount.

    -- Is there a way of assessing how good a job an arm does in dealing with energy handed off to it from a cartridge? Are there cartridges, or cartridge designs (other than Lyra) whose success is predicated on the ability of an arm to act as a resonance sink? What is it about the Opus 1 that makes it more compatible with more different 'arms? (As brougnt up by PeterA and Tango.) Greater weight? Duralumin base? More metal, type of metal?

    -- Cartridge body materials and design, arm wand materials and design, the way energy (vibrations) travel (or not) across different materials and how resonance dissipates. Doesn't it work both ways: cart to 'arm and 'arm to cart? Can bearing chatter find its way into a cartridge body? It seems there is another level of information, technique, or more likely expertise, that could in some way codify that a given match is more or less likely to fulfill its destiny. (forgive me, just watched Star Wars on Netflix). Where is the Kevin Tellekamp of the tonearm world?

    -- For all I know builders of both 'arms and cartridges are already using Laser Doppler Vibrometry at the nano level (or some such technique) to assess what is gong on, resonance-wise - or maybe not. I doubt manufacturers of either will want to get into specifying specific matches, but maybe "kinds" of matches or a hint on what will work better could be forthcoming. Given the prices of both 'arms and carts, better information would be welcome. Tonearm manufacturers and Cartridge manufacturers could (at least) tell us what they used in testing their designs

    -- As noted we are somewhat 'forced' to go asking around ... will my cartridge work? Are there knowledges to be had ahead of time, beyond trial and error?

    Then, to go off track here at the end: We tend to insist on the notion of a 'fair' comparison. For example many believe cartridges should only truly be compared on the same arm, same etc. Maybe we should compare optimal setups instead - ultimately this goes to the entire Analog System, but staying in bounds maybe we should compare cartridges X and Y in their optimal setups. Cartridge X on Tonearm A vs Cartridge Y on Tonearm B, where each performs its best.

    How can we tell if Cartridge X and Tonearm A will work well together?

  • #2
    This information would be very helpful. At a minimum it would be good to know, for starters, which compliance category (low, med high) each tonearm and cartridge fits into.
    Speakers: Vandersteen Model 7s, 4 M&K ST-150Ts, 1 VCC-5; Amplification: 2 Vandersteen M7-HPAs, CI Audio D200 MKII, Ayre V-6xe; Preamp: Doshi Audio Line Stage v3.0; Phono Pre: Doshi Audio V3 Phono Pre; Analog: Wave Kinetics NVS; Durand Telos and SME 3012R Tonearms, Lyra Etna SL, Ortofon Anna, Benz Micro LPS; Reel to Reel: Technics RS-1500; Doshi Tape Pre-Amp; Studer A810; Tascam BR-20; Multi-channel: Bryston SP-3; Digital: Custom PC> Lampizator Big 7 DAC

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by dminches View Post
      This information would be very helpful. At a minimum it would be good to know, for starters, which compliance category (low, med high) each tonearm and cartridge fits into.
      For the most part this information is available, at least in the basic terms of cartridge weight and compliance and tonearms effective mass, but we still don't have an easy picture as op indicated.

      Example:

      I've had the Etsuro Urushi Blue on two different Talos tonearms. The Etsuro is on the lighter side but within the weight recommendations of Durand. On one system it was really great. On the other it hinted at greatness but was also nudging into strident territory in the midband. Other than the tonearms and demo cart being the same all other system variables were different.

      This didn't surprise me much, loading options were limited in both situations (affecting cartridge suspension etc.) not to mention different system strengths.

      If I only had one data point or the other could I make a definite statement about compatibility?
      Last edited by solypsa; 07-11-2018, 02:54 PM. Reason: grammar
      Regards,

      Erik
      http://solypsa.com
      North American distributor for:
      Sensitive Sound MC Cartridges
      STST Turntables + Tonearms


      Available for in home setup and calibration of fine turntable systems

      Comment


      • #4
        Unlikely to ever happen for us to understand empirically how a cartridge and arm will react together. Let's face it-other than tape- this is the smallest niche of the home entertainment business especially at the level most of us play in on this board.

        There is no incentive to make the investment to understand multiple scenarios based on the numbers. Not enough volume or money to make the tests or build standard environments that would begin to tell the story in 2018.The standards that were built 60-70 years ago have long been forgotten and the software that was used to begin to standardize outcomes and measurements is in landfills.

        Think of all the things you would have to control for to come up with a rational reason for how things would behave mechanically and electrically.

        There is hope! I have one of these I'm resurrecting- maybe I'll set up a clinic. Even this Ortofon machine does not work in a controlled environment test after test.


        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0619.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	81.1 KB
ID:	91981
        Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0623.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	93.7 KB
ID:	91982Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_0620.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	84.7 KB
ID:	91983


        Front end: Aesthetix Io Eclipse with 2 Power Supplies and Volume controls
        Brinkmann La Grange & RonT Tube Power supply with Kuzma 4-point ,FR64S, Brinkmann 12.1 , Koetsu Rosewood Signature Platinum, Lyra Atlas, Lyra Etna SL Goldfinger Statement, KLAUDIO RCM, HRSM3X
        Amps: Wyetech Topaz, Futterman H3 Quad II,Citation II, Marantz 8b, 5 ,2
        Pre-Amps: ARC SP 3a, Marantz 7, Marantz Model 1 Consolette Pair
        Speakers: Quad ESL 57, Beveridge Model 3 DD amps, REL S/2 x 2

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kcin View Post
          Unlikely to ever happen for us to understand empirically how a cartridge and arm will react together. Let's face it-other than tape- this is the smallest niche of the home entertainment business especially at the level most of us play in on this board.

          There is no incentive to make the investment to understand multiple scenarios based on the numbers. Not enough volume or money to make the tests or build standard environments that would begin to tell the story in 2018.The standards that were built 60-70 years ago have long been forgotten and the software that was used to begin to standardize outcomes and measurements is in landfills.

          Think of all the things you would have to control for to come up with a rational reason for how things would behave mechanically and electrically.

          There is hope! I have one of these I'm resurrecting- maybe I'll set up a clinic. Even this Ortofon machine does not work in a controlled environment test after test.


          Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_0619.jpg Views:	2 Size:	81.1 KB ID:	91981
          Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_0623.jpg Views:	2 Size:	93.7 KB ID:	91982Click image for larger version  Name:	IMG_0620.jpg Views:	2 Size:	84.7 KB ID:	91983

          Thanks for your post.

          Your Ortofon Test Computer is fascinating, at least from the print outs(?) of the various parameters it can identify (?). Makes me wonder what kind of printer it would use.

          I appreciate your skepticism drawing on the implausibility of incentive. The idea of tools and processes to measure specific cartridge-tonearm interaction may be too much to ask or even hope for.

          Stepping back from such a grand endeavor, there is the notion of more information about each component individually along with the notion of guidelines about how to match them up, or the likelihood of a 'good' match. Just as supposedly we can use cantilever compliance and tonearm effective mass to gauge resonance frequency.

          If it is true that cartridges can be understood in terms of their resonance mitigation strategy - couldn't cartridge manufacturers/designers tell us about that - if they have one? For example: I know the Fuuga cartridge body is made up of three layers of different aluminum alloy (7075, 6065, 2017) of varying thickness. An expert in aluminum alloys might be able to give some general assessment of that construction in terms of how effective it is in directing energy away from the generator and into the tonearm - or at least say some 'arms that work well.

          Since it is possible today to manage resonance on a component by component basis given data about components (my reference to Kevin T of SRA) then maybe a cartridge is another physical object to which such analysis could be applied. If similar analysis could be applied to tonearms, given their material make-up, shape, etc. (a big etc.) then could we learn how well a given arm acts as 'receiver' or 'absorber' of resonance, at what frequency range, its 'capture' abiltiy without reflection, etc. These are words from my small Newtonian mind - everything is probably more complicated, but hopefully the ideas come across. The so-called guidelines help us put together data on cartridge and 'arm to arrive at some notion of how well X and A mate up.

          What are the best materials or strategy for turning (converting) the mechanical resonance of a cartridge - within some range of frequency - into a less malevolent form.. Some tonearm manufacturers put "stuff" inside their arm tubes. Various 'arm compositions seem - at least some do - to pay attention to damping.

          Would cartridge or 'arm manufacturers/designers invest in tools or processes to provide more knowledge. (Your question. "Not likely", your answer.) Who knows. It takes a long time for standards to codify. If there was a competitive advantage in having such information or if there was an expectation from we the niche community. (I didn't buy your cartridge because I didn't know if it would work with my tonearm, and I bought his because I knew beforehand that it would.)

          Here's a simpler(?) item: what about cartridge bolt torque? Cartridge makers should be able to tell us something. Are there general guidelines? Interestingly, Richard Mak is selling a torque wrench preset at what he believes is optimal, as part of his AnalogMagic system. (fwiw, I bought his package but have not used it yet.) Is there a single optimal torque setting? Could it be known if your 'arm is an X/Y/Z and cartridge is A/B/C use 123 inch-pounds, but if you have a stone body D or E, use ...?

          What about tonearm wire composition vs the electrical specs of a given cartridge and phono section?

          But this thread is not meant solely for ranting about what is or is not doable. Surely, shirley, there must be knowledge, at least for individual combinations of 'arm and cartridge that perhaps lay a ground for extrapolation.

          Comment


          • #6
            Click image for larger version  Name:	 Views:	2 Size:	1.32 MB ID:	92026 Matching tonearms and cartdriges that´s a real challenge !

            In my case i took the "Japonese old school" path and bought 12" inch high mass tonearms to match High mass and low compliance cartdriges.

            I also invested in silver wiring all the tonearms from headsheel to rca out connections. Investing in silver wiring the headshell leads including the internal wiring of my SPU cartdriges was also a significance improvement.

            So far i have been very happy with the results. There is a lot of information in the web about the "old japonese school" and it has a lot of fans.

            i guess they could not all be wrong about that "path" and most important they are not selling it because most off that equipament is not for sale for decades.

            SEAS EXCEL DIY Speakers; CJ Premier 12; CJ Premier 14; CJ Premier EV1; Accuphase DP 85; MAC Airbook + Audionirvana plus+ Qobuz + Tidal; Micro Seiki RX 1500; Ikeda IT 407 12" + Ortofon MC A95; Thomas Schick 12" + Ortofon SPU 90th Anniversary; Fidelity Research FR64 FX 10" + Ortofon SPU Royal GM MKII; SME M2 12-R + Ortofon MC XPRESSION; Kenwood KD 7010 + Ortofon Jubilee; Revox B710; Revox A77; Revox PR99; Pure Silver DIY Cables; Sennheiser HD800; Sennheiser HDVD 800; Akai AT S-08 Tuner.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tima View Post


              Here's a simpler(?) item: what about cartridge bolt torque? Cartridge makers should be able to tell us something. Are there general guidelines? Interestingly, Richard Mak is selling a torque wrench preset at what he believes is optimal, as part of his AnalogMagic system. (fwiw, I bought his package but have not used it yet.) Is there a single optimal torque setting? Could it be known if your 'arm is an X/Y/Z and cartridge is A/B/C use 123 inch-pounds, but if you have a stone body D or E, use ...?

              What about tonearm wire composition vs the electrical specs of a given cartridge and phono section?

              But this thread is not meant solely for ranting about what is or is not doable. Surely, shirley, there must be knowledge, at least for individual combinations of 'arm and cartridge that perhaps lay a ground for extrapolation.
              Hi Tima,

              I am cynical- it is my nature. I work in an industry where standards are very important. We have industry engineering associations for guidance, government regulations that have been developed over years of experience, manufacturer adherence to standard testing based on accepted formats.

              In your simple example of tightening a cartridge bolt, am I installing it on a magnesium head shell or ebony wood? or aluminum? - what kind of aluminum? What kind of bolt: brass, aluminum, titanium - what grade of metal in each instance? You see it becomes impossible to do at reasonable cost.When the military or even automotive industry provides a scope of work and materials they are very specific- and they pay for it. I bet 99% of the cartridge bolts provided today come out of China with no understanding of their parameters or construction.

              There were tests done in the 80's on various cartridges and arms for frequency response and resonance by Audio magazine and one extensive but maybe flawed series in Moncreiff's IAR - at least it was the same test in the same environment for different cartridges. You may want to look those up - I have them stashed somewhere.

              The time for that work has past as the industry is very small and there is no money in it for the mfr's. The time to do it would have been when Technics, Pioneer, Sony were in their hay day and had the volume and money to do further research and development and trickle it down to the millions of cartridges and tonearms being sold annually.

              Outside of that, I am sure you will get anecdotal responses on combinations from many. According to some the 40 year old SME 3012 is the best or maybe its the FR66s or the xxx modern tonearm..... you get it

              Everyone one has an agenda whether it is to validate their own choice ( I include my self here as well) or promote and sell another widget.

              Have fun!
              Front end: Aesthetix Io Eclipse with 2 Power Supplies and Volume controls
              Brinkmann La Grange & RonT Tube Power supply with Kuzma 4-point ,FR64S, Brinkmann 12.1 , Koetsu Rosewood Signature Platinum, Lyra Atlas, Lyra Etna SL Goldfinger Statement, KLAUDIO RCM, HRSM3X
              Amps: Wyetech Topaz, Futterman H3 Quad II,Citation II, Marantz 8b, 5 ,2
              Pre-Amps: ARC SP 3a, Marantz 7, Marantz Model 1 Consolette Pair
              Speakers: Quad ESL 57, Beveridge Model 3 DD amps, REL S/2 x 2

              Comment


              • #8
                Kcin conveyed much of what I wanted say, B&K were the preeminent authority back in the day on testing turntables/arms/carts among other disciplines (see attached paper ca '77). Even when you have the empirical data to make assumptions its no guarantee the result will be what's expected. I use everything at my disposal including manufacture specs (which can be dubious and altogether unavailable) along with the final arbiter 'my ears.' I think this is what drives the left brained audiophile nuts and why they may be repulsed by vinyl playback, too much 'black art' or lack of repeatability and precision.

                Below is the conclusion in the B&K paper, in spite of applying hard science they're still basically saying what we already know:

                "Conclusion
                in this paper we have pointed out that traditional specifications like rumble, wow and flutter and required tracking force are both unreliable and inadequate. Furthermore, they are strongly influenced by the actual combination of motor, arm, cartridge and record, all of which are often left to random decisions by the Hi-Fi consumer. By the use of modern test equipment, we have tried to throw a little light on the
                causes and influence of the interface problems between the elements in a turntable. Assisted by listening
                tests one can conclude that the fundamental problem creating parameter is the frequency response of the turntable below 20 Hz. Most modern turntables leave much to be desired, typically they have resonance peaks of 5 — 10dB at 5 — 7 Hz. The first thing to do is to raise the frequency to 1 5 — 1 8 Hz and then ideally damp the system to a Q of 0,5, letting response roll off at preferably 1 2 dB/oct. In pursuit of this goal one should not make tradeoffs with respect to rigidity of the tone arm tube and fixture Flexing in the arm and other spurious resonances could then be the result and destroy the stability of the stereo image.

                Finally, in Part 2 we have focused on a type of distortion that is most clearly seen in the time domain:
                Early reflections. Our investigation tells us that here is an area which, at present, has rather poor correlation between the measurement methods available and the impact on the sound quality."
                Attached Files
                How Do You Beat Audiophile Nervosa?

                Step Number 1: Upgrade your music collection first. If you do it correctly that should keep you busy in perpetuity.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by dminches View Post
                  This information would be very helpful. At a minimum it would be good to know, for starters, which compliance category (low, med high) each tonearm and cartridge fits into.
                  Here is what Ortofon says:

                  Cartridge and tonearm systems resonance frequency

                  To maintain a cartridge/tonearm system resonance frequency within the acceptable range of 7 to 12 Hz, whereas 10 Hz recommended, it is necessary to choose a cartridge with the mass and compliance matching the tonearm



                  When selecting either MC or MM cartridges for your record player, total mass of tonearm (including cartridge and headshell) has to be taken into account in relation to the mechanical compliance (elasticity) of the cartridge cantilever system. The high mass of the combination needs low mechanical compliance, otherwise record warps can easily provoke tonearm vibrations at frequencies around 4 to 6 Hz, that will bring degradation of performance (at least 8 Hz is advisable)



                  ==> A phono cartridge with the compliance in the range of 5 to 10 µm/mN is considered as a very low compliance cartridge, a cartridge with the compliance in the range of 10 to 20 µm/mN is moderate compliance cartridge and a cartridge with the compliance value above 35µm/mN is very high compliance cartridge.

                  Low mass arms* mate well with both moderately high and very high compliance phono cartridges.
                  *A tonearm whose effective mass is rated at 10 grams or below is considered low mass (e.g. early SME’s, Grace 747, Ortofon AS-309S, RS-309D, TA-110 and TA-210).

                  Moderate mass tonearms** are good companions for moderate to low compliance cartridges.
                  **A tonearm whose effective mass is rated between 11 and 25 grams is considered moderate mass (e.g. SME 309, IV, IV-VI, V, Triplanar, Graham). Arms above 25 grams of mass are high mass in nature (Eminent Technology, Dynavector).

                  If a low compliance cartridge is used with a low mass tonearm, undesirable resonances can occur in the audible range. Mistracking may also be a problem.

                  When a high compliance cartridge is mated with a moderate mass tonearm, resonances in the infrasonic range may occur in addition to some unwanted high frequency damping.
                  and from Galen Carol:

                  * A tonearm whose effective mass is rated at 10 grams or below is considered low mass (e.g. early SME’s, Grace 747 etc.). A tonearm whose effective mass is rated between 11 and 25 grams is considered moderate mass (e.g. SME 309, IV, IV-Vi, V, Triplanar, Graham). Arms above 25 grams of mass are high mass in nature (Eminent Technology, Dynavector).

                  * A phono cartridge whose compliance is rated at 12 x l0ˉ6 or below, is considered low compliance. A cartridge whose compliance is rated between 13 x l0ˉ6 and 25 x l0ˉ6 is considered high to very high. Note: Another way of expressing compliance is um/mN. Here a rating of 5 to 10 is considered very low, 10 to 20 is moderate and above 35 is very high.

                  * Low mass arms mate well with both moderately high and very high compliance phono cartridges.

                  * Moderate mass tonearms are good companions for moderate to low compliance cartridges.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by kcin View Post

                    Snip-
                    In your simple example of tightening a cartridge bolt, am I installing it on a magnesium head shell or ebony wood? or aluminum? - what kind of aluminum? What kind of bolt: brass, aluminum, titanium - what grade of metal in each
                    This is why you need an adjustable torque driver and some experiments! Rega, for example, sells a fixed torque driver but they are dealing with their plastic bodies, their screws and aluminum arm wand...never mind how annoying it is to loosen a screw to try a different tension and subtly lose your alignment to
                    Regards,

                    Erik
                    http://solypsa.com
                    North American distributor for:
                    Sensitive Sound MC Cartridges
                    STST Turntables + Tonearms


                    Available for in home setup and calibration of fine turntable systems

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      this thread is enough to make you want to go all digital
                      Magnepan 1.6 QR Loudspeakers, Amherst A-2000 MOSFET 150 WPC Amp, Conrad Johnson PV-10A Modded Tube Line & Phono Stage, Electrocompaniet MC II Class A Head Amp, Shelter 501 Mark II Cart (St) , Graham Engineering 2.2 Tonearm (St) , VPI Aries-1 Turntable (St) , VPI Clamp, Denon DL-102 Cart, (M) , Luxman Tonearm (M) , Kenwood KD-500 Turntable (M) , Michell Clamp, Marantz 20B Analog FM Tuner, Teac A3300SX R2R, Pioneer SACD, Onkyo DX-6800 CD Transport, DIY 24B/192K DAC, DIY Silver Interconnects

                      Comment


                      • tima
                        tima commented
                        Editing a comment
                        Nah...

                    • #12
                      Originally posted by JCOConnell View Post
                      this thread is enough to make you want to go all digital
                      you musta missed this thread:
                      https://www.audionirvana.org/forum/t...e-can-agree-on
                      How Do You Beat Audiophile Nervosa?

                      Step Number 1: Upgrade your music collection first. If you do it correctly that should keep you busy in perpetuity.

                      Comment


                      • #13
                        Very interesting read gents! Trial and error has led to my best results, but definitive information would be helpful!
                        Regards,
                        Jim

                        Comment


                        • #14
                          Originally posted by solypsa View Post

                          This is why you need an adjustable torque driver and some experiments! Rega, for example, sells a fixed torque driver but they are dealing with their plastic bodies, their screws and aluminum arm wand...never mind how annoying it is to loosen a screw to try a different tension and subtly lose your alignment to
                          I looked (and looked) for an adjustable torque wrench that can do less than 1 inch-pounds but found none.

                          Comment


                          • solypsa
                            solypsa commented
                            Editing a comment
                            Tohnichi adjustable drivers in CnM

                          • tima
                            tima commented
                            Editing a comment
                            Thanks for the reference. Tonichi has a lot of torque wrenches! I'm afraid to know costs. :-)

                            Let's say we want to torque headshell bolts at 0.7 inch-pounds, which is close to a value I've heard recommended.

                            0.7 inch-pounds = 0.0791 Newton-meters = 7.91 centi-Newton meters (cN·m) = 0.8049 kilogram force centimeter (kgf·cm)

                            I could not Tonichi adjustable torque wrenches that went that low, but i did not look at every model.

                            Nice converter here = https://www.mountztorque.com/service...ion-calculator

                        • #15
                          Originally posted by tima View Post

                          I looked (and looked) for an adjustable torque wrench that can do less than 1 inch-pounds but found none.
                          I haven't found any driver significantly less than 1 in-lb either, but use slightly higher torque anyway. I use the Wiha TorqueVario-S 2852 driver which is adjustable from 0.10-0.60 Nm (1-5 in-lb). As always, YMMV.

                          Click image for larger version  Name:	Wiha torque driver.jpg Views:	2 Size:	150.2 KB ID:	92260

                          1 in-lb = 0.112985 Nm

                          Wiha Settings in Nm__ = __ in-lb equivalence
                          _______0.10_______________ 0.9
                          _______0.15_______________ 1.3
                          _______0.20_______________ 1.8
                          _______0.25_______________ 2.2 I use 0.25 Nm for VPI 3D arms at the moment, but also use finger-lift as a spacer between screw and headshell*
                          _______0.30_______________ 2.7
                          _______0.35_______________ 3.1 I use 0.35 Nm for aluminum headshells at the moment*
                          _______0.40_______________ 3.5
                          _______0.45_______________ 4.0
                          _______0.50_______________ 4.4
                          _______0.55_______________ 4.9
                          _______0.60_______________ 5.3

                          *Disclaimer/caveat emptor: Warning. You can damage/break your cartridge and or headshell/tonearm with too much torque so be careful. Adjust at your own risk!

                          Comment


                          • tima
                            tima commented
                            Editing a comment
                            Thanks Joe! I have one of those in American (much less $). You posted before I finished my above comment to Solypsa.
                        Working...
                        X