Hadcock arms

I´ve just installed a 242 w/ incognito wire from Audiofeil, and it works fine with my spacedeck.
Installation is a matter of patience. It took me about 4 hours to read the manual and do the job. If I could do it, anybody can.
The current cartridge is a Music maker III.
The hadcock and music maker fit like hand in glove, and the combo sounds better than my former RB600 plus Michel counterweight and Incognito wire, with Sumiko Blackbird, Clearaudio Virtuoso wood or Denon 103R.

Some of the information in this thread is incorrect. All Hadcock 228's and 242's use the 4-ball bearing; none are traditional unstabilized unipivots. In the earlier 228's, the arm tubes were aluminum, and the headshell angle was slightly incorrect. The 242's had steel arm tubes, slightly longer. At one point, a heavier-duty bearing structure became available in some models.

The current-manufacture 228's and 242's all use an upgraded 4-ball bearing structure and steel arm tube, and the headshell angle is correct. The only difference between the various Hadcock models now is the arm length and the quality of the wiring. I own and use a 242 Integra.

Having been surprised at the mass of my 242, I installed a Denon 103 just to see what would happen. It sounded *fabulous*!

Although the Hadcock is a pain to set up (especially after my JMW 10), it seems to be unusually versatile. I never would have guessed that the same tonearm could work with my high-compliance Music Maker 3 and a low-compliance unit like the 103!

The operating principle seems weird to me, but I can't argue with how it sounds.

>>You need to use fluid damping for the Deccas and MCs<<

Perhaps for the older models but not the latest versions.

The Hadcock arms are excellent value for money. They have always had the inverted unipivot and 4 ball bearing since they appeared in the late 1970s. I still use my original hadcock 228 (circa 1981) although it plays second fiddle to my Schroeder 2 now.
Over the years I have used this with all sorts of carts - ortofon VMS20, ADC XLM, Ortofon MC10, Decca London Maroon and Gold (Garrott Brothers) and my current Allaerts MC1B. I've had no problems with any of them. You need to use fluid damping for the Deccas and MCs. Otherwise it's excellent. It has gone up in price since I bought mine in 1981 - I paid 65 GBP (120 USD) for my new arm then!
The newer versions are better made, more adaptable (with removeable armwands) and the longer ones have a slightly higher mass to suit the current vogue for lower compliance MCs. But they all work fine.

I agree with Audiofeil, the old Hadcock 228 works surprisingly well with stiffer carts too. I've tried an Ortofon MC30 super in it with good results. Have not tried the Denon 103 in it though. I would not call it a traditional unipivot since the "needle" goes into a bearing with 4 balls. Mr Hadcock tried a 3 ball bearing as well but found that 4 balls gave a better result.
The arm is a b*tch to set up though...

Hey Viridian,

Thanks! That was exactly how I would have responded.

Thanks all.

Joe

Actually the Hadcocks work well with most cartridges not just high compliance cartridges. I am using the 242 with both a Zyx Airy3S LO SB and a Cartridge Man Music Maker 3; both sound terrific and track flawlessly in the 242.
A popular misconception is that Hadcocks have low effective mass but at 11.4 grams for the 242 and 9.1 grams for the 228 they should be considered medium effective mass tonearms.

The 228 is a traditional unipivot design. The 242 is a "modified" unipivot in that it has two pivots and behaves like a more traditional gimbal type arm if you believe the advertisements.

Hi Joe,

Also, the 228 is lighter in effective mass.

Generally, Hadcocks are paired with Grado, Music Maker, or other higher compliance MC cartridges, or alot of MM cartridges.

Don't even think about a DL103R on a Hadcock. It's a classic unstabilized unipivot from the 1970's, and has always had a "cult following" with Grado users. Not a bad arm at all, as long as you match the right kinds of cartridges to it.

Hey Joe,
The main difference between these two arms is the length. The 228 has an effective length of approximately 228mm, and so forth.
Jim