Compliance conversion tables

killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Field Marshall
Ratings
772 6 13
#1
Have you ever found some easy to understand conversion tables for compliance specs for TT's?

So far, I found that US manufacturers have been known to list static compliance numbers. Japs use the n x 10 to the power of -6 but it's at 100Hz and the EU measures at 10Hz and it is μm/m N and not the nx10-6.

My head is spinning from trying to convert these. All the numbers I got when trying to find a good cartridge were actually wrong due to these different standards.

I DID follow the link in our TT buying guide:

http://www.resfreq.com/resonancecalculator.html

But here it says to multiply the Japanese numbers with 1.5 – 2. which is casual enough to buy the wrong cart. Also, our guide says “Conversely, if the resonant frequency is too high (15 Hz-20 Hz range) music, warp, record noise, etc. in the lowest of audible ranges will resonate with the arm/cartridge, also causing huge speaker excursions. If a note coincides with an audible tonearm/cartridge resonance the cartridge can mistrack or at the very least, you’ll hear an exaggerated boom in the bass.” but the linked web page says: “It is interesting to note that Poul Ladegaard of 'Bruel og Kjaer' determined empirically that the 'best" resonance frequency would be much higher (15Hz to 18Hz) than what is normally considered desirable. See his excellent AES paper published here.”

So the ideal and mismatch overlap.
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Field Marshall
Ratings
772 6 13
#2
I found this, courtesy of very nice Mr. Manfred.

Compliance basically is reversed (spring) stiffness, i.e. displacement per force instead of force per displacement. Typical range for hifi cartridges is about 10 to 50 µm/mN - but of course one could also write that as mm/N or m/kN, which would be easy conversions (numerator / 1000 and denominator / 1000 each, so we can scratch/reduce that). However, you could also convert to less easily applicable unit variants - like for example cm/N, so that we'd need an additional "x 10^-1" as correction factor, if we'd still like to state that same range as 10 to 50 (x 10^-1 cm/N). Well, and the dyne is a pretty small unit of force (1 N = 100000 dyn) - so if we'd start at our equivalent 10 to 50 mm/N, we'd need numerator / 10 and denominator x 10^5 = numerator x 10^-6 to arrive at our desired 10 to 50 x 10^-6 cm/dyn.

So that's merely a bit of conversion math in order to present nicely readable values. And because both of the usual styles, yy µm/mN and yy x 10^-6 cm/dyn, describe just the same range, the lazier among us phono fans have adpoted the "cu" for "compliance unit(s)" as conveniently typable "replacement (pseudo-)unit".

Well, and both (or maybe even all three, if we regard Japan style dynamic compliance @ 100 Hz as somewhat different matter compared to dynamic compliance @ 10 Hz) types of compliances can be useful. The type of compliance you need for working with the usual tonearm resonance formula is the dynamic compliance at 10 Hz, though.

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred
So old numbers vs. new numbers are not to worry about. Static compliance should be halved (this is very imprecise) and Japanese numbers should be multiplied by a number between 1.5 and 2. which is also imprecise enough for me to have a resonant freq. actually at a considerably low 8.233

I became aware of this after I visited the repair shop with my TT. There were three ways the problem was eliminated;
subsonic filter (my didn't work, perhaps it doesn't cut off where it should)
a flat record
a different cartridge.

I know vinyl aficionados claim that subsonic shouldn't be used as it covers some deeper problem and you should have tone arm/cartridge match made in heaven and TT placed in a perfect spot and perfectly decoupled, but this is not a real world solution in my book. I live where I live and have limited options regarding TT placement. My records are what I have and I don't intend going out there looking for a flat Three Dogs Nights or Hocus Pocus from Focus not to mention In A Gadda Da Vida.

So a more suitable cart match and some decoupling is it. No test records neither.

In order to know how to convert Japanese numbers into what we use in our parts, you would have to know what is the resonant freq of your cart measured using a test record. You might be lucky enough to find it somewhere in forums on the Internet.

So, as long as it is not static compliance or measured at 100Hz, you can just enter the first two digits into resonant freq. calculator like this one (upper left). This is also why VinylEngine's database just coppied the first one/two digits into their calculators:
1565702113682.png

Here for example, if you press "9", bottom left, you get a spreadsheet with what you need for proper matching. The number 9 actually comes from this spec:

9 μm/m N

The rest you also do with knowing the relative tone arm mass and the total mass of the cartridge together with the fasteners and the headshell.
 
Last edited:
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Field Marshall
Ratings
772 6 13
#3
In the meantime; if compliance is springiness of the cantilever why do cartridges have compliance numbers stated even if you're buying them with no stylus?

It could be, of course, because of matching - saying that a certain stylus will be compliance for example 14 IF the proper cart is used bc compliance has todo with weight as well so a heavier/lighter cart will change compliance. But then you should take these numbers as relative also to the weight of your headshell, right?
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Field Marshall
Ratings
772 6 13
#4
This is an answer I've got from a very kind lady from Ortofon:

Concorde Pro S is a basic entry-level DJ cartridge, stylus 5E is a replacement for HiFi OM cartridges. We distinguish between HiFi and DJ range and these cartridges configurations.
We neither recommend nor support the combination Pro S + replacement stylus 5E. Physically HiFi replacement styli 3E, 5E, 10, 20, 30 and 40 will fit on Concorde cartridge bodies, incl. Concorde Pro S. However it is necessary to say that each cartridge series is designed with a synergistic combination in mind - that is, each stylus is made to compliment the magnet and coil configuration of each cartridge body. Using alternative DJ stylus model with Pro S body will not provide the full benefit of either product, and might even provide undesired results, including (but not limited to) differences in output, unbalanced sound reproduction, etc.
- Replacement styli 3E, 5E, 10, 20, 30 and 40 are for HiFi application and supposed to be mounted on the HiFi OM 5S/ 5E /Super OM 5/ cartridges bodies.
- Stylus 10 can be used with Concorde Nightclub MkII, Arkiv & Gold, but not good enough combination if you wish HiFi performance.
- Stylus 5E fits all other DJ carts with spherical stylus, but again you will not get the desired HiFi accuracy (S-120 stylus doesn’t fit physically and cannot be used) and some a/m undesired result can occur.
- Combination Pro S and stylus 10/20/30/40 makes no sense as you will not get the advantages of coils in these more advanced styli, just waste of money.

Also, it is vital to maintain a cartridge/tonearm system resonance frequency within the acceptable range of 7 to 12 Hz, whereas 10 Hz recommended. The system compatibility can be calculated using formula f = 1000 : (2 x π x √ (M x C)):
f - Cartridge resonance frequency in Hz
π - 3.14159265359...
C - Cartridge compliance lateral in µm/mN
M - Total tonearm system mass which is a sum of Mass of cartridge, Mass of headshell and screws and Effective mass of tone arm (all values in gram).

1. Frequency within 7-12Hz is an optimal combination
2. Possible combination that probably can be used without problems with a frequency slightly outside optimal interval: 6,5-7Hz and 12-14Hz
3. Outside the range 6,5-7Hz and 12-14Hz is a questionable combination that might not work properly
Some useful info here, although I got the feeling the answer is simply official and doesn't allow for any experimenting.

My father bought a Concorde cartridge and I didn't want it to go to waste. I've put a more sensitive stylus on that cartridge and considerably lowered the tracking pressure. Stylii from OM series fit the Concorde cartridges. Concorde ProS asks for 5g tracking presure and OM5E asks for 2. Putting the 5E on Concorde and going from 5g - 2g made it sound really good to me (and others).
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Field Marshall
Ratings
772 6 13
#6
Oh, how I long for the days when cartridge compliance was shown as Dynes/cM! :)

10^-5 Newtons, BTW
:D:D:D:D
I don't long for any of this. If I could just get the damn thing to stop pulsating and forget about it. If on the way I get a slightly better sound... it's not necessary though.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
Ratings
3,291 9 15
#7
:D:D:D:D
I don't long for any of this. If I could just get the damn thing to stop pulsating and forget about it. If on the way I get a slightly better sound... it's not necessary though.
If you want to stop the pulsating, flatten the LPs. You can also use a rumble filter and a cartridge that's less compliant.

If the speakers are ported and you're using them full-range, you can block the port to limit the low frequency resonances, depending on the tuning frequency, F3 and resonant frequency of the tonearm/stylus. If the LP doesn't have a lot of low frequency content, it won't be missed.
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Field Marshall
Ratings
772 6 13
#8
If you want to stop the pulsating, flatten the LPs. You can also use a rumble filter and a cartridge that's less compliant.

If the speakers are ported and you're using them full-range, you can block the port to limit the low frequency resonances, depending on the tuning frequency, F3 and resonant frequency of the tonearm/stylus. If the LP doesn't have a lot of low frequency content, it won't be missed.
I got the pulsating in sealed box as well. I'm going for the less compliant cartridge. I'm not, really NOT flattening 500 records, noooo way. My amp doesn't have the subsonic filter and I'm not buying one or getting a different amp. So, the cartridge it is... Thanks anyway.
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Field Marshall
Ratings
772 6 13
#11
Man, you really gotta love your vinyl to go that direction. Not knocking it in any way. Just there's more to putting things together than what appears on the surface for a noob like me.
I didn't think of myself that way. I'd even buy a less sensitive (think of it as DJ's stylus) just to get the thing done and I can't wait to dedicate myself to something else in my system. I just don't want to all the way and get a brick of a stylus and hasten the deterioration of inherited records.

I'm in a vicious cycle in a way, It's all from my dead father and having it not working properly, selling it or throwing it away all feel bad. I wish for a decent mid performance to play it every now and then and that's it. Thank you for a compassionate ear!

@lovinthehd not to my eyes, that's the whole problem, they seem to spin well enough not to expect such problems, but I was proven wrong. Using a flat record did calm the woofers down. Since, as I said, I got what I got, I'll just try to find a stylus that is... as sensitive as possible but with no woofers pulsating.

Also @Pogre I'm as noob as they come. It seems I've used calculators all wrong and took effective tone arm mass without the head shell and then added the mass of the tone arm... You live and you learn... It seems the number provided by the manual refers to mass of the tone arm + the original headshell... I have to do it all over again.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Overlord
Ratings
3,291 9 15
#12
I got the pulsating in sealed box as well. I'm going for the less compliant cartridge. I'm not, really NOT flattening 500 records, noooo way. My amp doesn't have the subsonic filter and I'm not buying one or getting a different amp. So, the cartridge it is... Thanks anyway.
I didn't mean that the LPs should be flattened individually- I posted earlier about using a record clamp and that's what I do. It helps a lot. Not a weight, a clamp.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Slumlord
Ratings
5,901 21 47
#13
I didn't think of myself that way. I'd even buy a less sensitive (think of it as DJ's stylus) just to get the thing done and I can't wait to dedicate myself to something else in my system. I just don't want to all the way and get a brick of a stylus and hasten the deterioration of inherited records.

I'm in a vicious cycle in a way, It's all from my dead father and having it not working properly, selling it or throwing it away all feel bad. I wish for a decent mid performance to play it every now and then and that's it. Thank you for a compassionate ear!

@lovinthehd not to my eyes, that's the whole problem, they seem to spin well enough not to expect such problems, but I was proven wrong. Using a flat record did calm the woofers down. Since, as I said, I got what I got, I'll just try to find a stylus that is... as sensitive as possible but with no woofers pulsating.

Also @Pogre I'm as noob as they come. It seems I've used calculators all wrong and took effective tone arm mass without the head shell and then added the mass of the tone arm... You live and you learn... It seems the number provided by the manual refers to mass of the tone arm + the original headshell... I have to do it all over again.
Spinning a warped record is no problem, it's getting it to track properly that's the challenge :) With that many I might start to try and flatten the records, there are methods out there, altho my personal choice was to return or throw out records warped enough not to track (and doubt the clamp will do much for those where the significant warp at the outer edge). My tt/cart will do fine with a modest warp, but.....
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Field Marshall
Ratings
772 6 13
#14
Spinning a warped record is no problem, it's getting it to track properly that's the challenge :) With that many I might start to try and flatten the records, there are methods out there, altho my personal choice was to return or throw out records warped enough not to track (and doubt the clamp will do much for those where the significant warp at the outer edge). My tt/cart will do fine with a modest warp, but.....
Yes, faltten. However, the reason I'm going for a better arm cartridge match is because I saw the servis man just trying with another cart and got no problems. So I think these exact same racords might play with no problems on some other TT and give reasonably good sound. And, as I said, It's not an option for me to throw them away.

Things get real complicated real soon in TT world. I've learned that changing a headshell of a tonearm is not that small of a thing as the original effective mass of the tone arm was calculated with a tonearm and an original stock headshell and no cart. Changing it is not just a matter of adding and subtracting the difference in grams since it has to do with the distribution of the weight relative to the stylus.

:D:D one or two more posts like this and no one will believe me I'm just trying to get the damn thing fixed and forget about it.
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Field Marshall
Ratings
772 6 13
#16
I'm just admiring your persistence with this medium. o_O
I'm admiring your insomnia and I've learned to like it! hahahhahahahahaaa

As I said, I feel stuck in a vicious cycle; having it working poorely or throwing it away are not my options. It's my late father's gear, I wanna keep it and it has to work at least as good as this model can in my listening room conditions.

This is slowly taking shape as my final decision;

All the calculations say I shouldn't have this problem I'm having with the AT-VM95E and yet, there it is. Going one third of the way with my master volume (I know it's not precise to go by this, but playing this cart on a Technics through the phono input, shouldn't be too much gain) and the cones are dancing.

For one reason or another, lower compliance cartridges seem to give better results in my system, but I'm looking for a hifi cart. Today, low compliance hifi cartridges are becoming rare, so my choice is shrinking...

BUT...

OTOH I've yet to find one bad review of the Nagaoka MP100 and believe me I looked, I must've opened 10-15 sites with some sort of comment on MP100, Vinyl Engine being full of good words. It's praises all the way... For the tracking, for sound, for detail etc.

It is 5.5 in Japanese numbers so roughly 9.6 and this also makes calculations really good.


So, unless someone stops me, this is my decision; I'm going for the Nagaoka MP100.

PS: It's just that the home page of Nagaoka says it's neither MM nor MC, but moving alloy (??),since it states 5mV, I guess I shouldn't worry.
 
killdozzer

killdozzer

Audioholic Field Marshall
Ratings
772 6 13
#17
If anyone's interested:

I got another answer from Ortofon. This time they said that on further inspection the combo I used on my brother's TT just might work, but they would advise against going higher in OM models (7, 10, 20... would be out of the question). It was an old Concorde ProS, but with the OM 5E stylus.

If your TT asks for lower compliance bc of a mid to heavier tone-arm, this might work for you.
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis