2. analog
  3. 173928-1560

Detachable Head shell or Not?

I am in the process to up my game with some phono system tweaking.

I read in these forums of many people here with multiple arms, multiple cartridges and even multiple turntables.  I am guilty of this myself but moderately compared to so many phono hardware diehards here.

All the continued comments on Talea vs. Schroeder vs. Kuzma, Da Vinci, Tri-Planar, etc., etc, on these forums.  And the flavor of the day cartridge.  One easy way to manage the use of many cartridges, easily swapping between them, and getting down to one turntable would be to run with a tonearm that supports removable head shells or arm tubes.  And yet this does not seem to be widely done here.  Is everybody just too proud of all the pretty phono hardware to admire?

Many highly respected arms of the past, FR 64/66, Ikeda, and now Glanz, Kuzma 4-Point, the new Tru-Glider, all with removable heads.  And the Graham and Da Vinci with removable arm tubes.  These products have a huge fan base and yet there seems to be an equal number of those against any extra mechanical couplings and cable junction boxes, din connections, etc.

I can appreciate having two cartridges, one to bring out that addictive lush bloomy performance and another that shows off that clarity and detail “to die for”.  Being able to easily swap between the two, with hopefully only a quick VTF/VTA change, would be mighty nice.  If too painful a process, I can understand the need for two arms here;  like the idea of going through many LPs in an evening and not being obsessed with tweaking the arm for each.  I hope I never get obsessed to do get to that point.  But for different days/nights, to listen to different kinds of music, it could be mighty nice to swap out one cartridge for another in different head shells without the added cluster and cost of oh please, not another tonearm!.  Do a minute or two of tweaking, ONCE, for that listening session, and then enjoy.  There is always the added risk during the uninstall / install process to damage that prized cartridge.

Is running with a tonearm that has a detachable head shell all that sinful / shameful in the audiophile world ……. or not?  I’d like to hear from those who have achieved musical bliss with removable head shell arms and also from those that if asked to try such a product would likely say, “over my dead body”!

John

jafox
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,162 posts
 

@dover ,)))) It works! When my wife met me I had Tympany IIIs. She thinks the Sound Labs are great looking. 

@lewm , as I am pissed at Porsche (long story) I vowed to change brands and was leaning towards McLaren until Corvette went mid engine. I did not like the looks of the Stingray, too boxy. But, when the blew out the fenders for the ZO6 the car became much better looking plus now they have an engine with character. Still no manual though. There are three more models to come. The ZR1 will be a Turbocharged ZO6 with a less track oriented suspension for high speed GT work. It is rumored to have 850HP. Then the Grand Sport which will be a Sting Ray with electric motors on both front wheels and finally the Zora (Zora Arkus-Duntov) which will be a ZR1 with electric front drive, think Porsche 918. That will be a sub 2 second car with a 1/4 in the 9s. The Sting Ray and ZO6 will soldier on. A track car must be rear wheel drive only. My suspicion is that properly optioned a ZR1 will outrun the ZO6 on track. I have a reservation on the ZR1. I like that wave of torque you get from turbo engines. The ZO6 is also a pretty noisy car. The ZR1 will be a bit quieter. Give me that, a Ford Lightening F150 and a couple of Ducati's and I will be set for life.

mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,162 posts
 

@au_lait , as long as you are using a low compliance cartridge, go for it. Will it sound better? Not one of us can tell you, but it will feel better and is a lot more reasonable than a lot of other rather silly tweaks. 

This is something I do not understand. We are audiophiles. I should think we like tinkering with our tables. I have no problems changing cartridges on a fixed head shell design. Once I have set them up the first time the cartridges are indexed with marks so I can put them in the exact same position without pulling out a jig. It takes not even ten minutes to change cartridges. One BIG help is a locking tonearm rest. It is a terrible hassle and very dangerous to be chasing floating tonearms with a $10K cartridge. Many arms come with them but many do not such as my Schroder which has no rest at all. Frank thinks they resonate. It is a simple matter to mount one on the plinth.  

lewm
12,451 posts
 

Aulait, my ears tell me there is a benefit associated with a direct wire connection. Is it night and day, and can I measure it? No. As to Richard Mak; I don’t know who he is. Difference I hear is for low output cartridges only. I don’t know why Mijo mentioned compliance. As to removable headshells I think one must pay close attention to the fit between headshell and arm wand, as previously mentioned. Best to use the headshell made for the arm, but there is some cross-compatibility. Ortofon headshells are particularly well made and tend to fit well. Yamamoto and Oyaide too.

aberyclark
1,355 posts
 

The Yamamoto HS-4 is a fantastic headshell

richopp
760 posts
 

Back in the old days (1970's), this was discussed quite a bit.  I believe that the consensus was that the lower mass of a fixed head shell offered the best reproduction.  However, they are difficult to work with, as many have noted, and back then, with Supex, Satin, Decca, AT, etc., there were only a few cartridges to choose from. 

Today, with so many more, I believe I might go for a removable one.  I would guess that there are nice matches for each arm/head shell combo from cartridge makers today that rival some fixed combos, but the two-tone-arm solution may be the one that works best IF you can convince TT people that the extra tone arm and cartridge do not "interfere" with the TT's ability to be as neutral as possible.

Fun times!

More to discover