I have owned Air Tangent 2B, 10B and Reference, ET 2.5 mod. and Goldmund T3F. Furthermore i have intimate experinece with the Kuzma Airline, Forsell and the Versa Dynamics.
While I would never dare to dispute their theoretical advantage of zero tracking error, all these linear tracking tonearms have/had a few shortcomings which ultimately put them off my tt's.
First of all, I yet have to find a linear tracking tonearm which does not put stress on the cantilever/suspension system of the cartridge mounted.
And it does so by design.
No matter whether active progression as with the Goldmund or passive progression as with Air Tangent and other air suspended linear tonearms - the force driving the tonearm in its linear way is applied through an often heavy lever and the force of lever acts right at the cantilevers suspension.
Not good.
I have found that most every linear tonearm shortens the life of the cartridge in use. No matter how careful you adjust all parameters and I am quite fussy with attention to detail in tonearm set-up.....
The theoretical advantage of zero tracking error is undisputed - but the advantage gets quite tiny regarding 10" and especially 12" tonearms.
Last but not least the bearing in air suspended, but also in slide mechanical bearing based tonearms is no match for the tight bearings of conventional pivot tonerams - unipivot, knife-edge or gimball bearings.
All these "old school" - bearings can handle mechanical energy induced into the tonearm by the tracking process much better than any real-world linear tracking bearing applied in tonearm design so far.
Thus they sonically outperform (the best pivot tonearms...) even the best linear trackers in low register weight, punch and brute force - and doing so by quite a good margin.
Yes, - the linear tracking concept in tonearm design has its theoretical advantages, but also its shortcomings inherent in the bearing principles applied so far.
We would either need super high air pressure - which will have some other new shortcomings coming with it... - or very tight (sealed...) linear bearings.
None of this has been brought to the market in lt-tonearm design so far.
And finally we would need to address that problem right at the tip of the cartridge' stylus....
Linear tracking tonearm design is a fine example of great promise in concept but many shortcomings in practice.... |
Mark, I would just give the Triplanar, DaVinci, new Ortofon as well as the Phantom II a good listen. These are current production and while not featuring the tightest and most rigid bearings in tonearm history, all four are capable to outperform each and every linear tracker in terms of speed, detail and inner punch in the lower registers. Precisely set-up their maximum derivation from zero tracking error is smaller than 1.6°.
Great contenders from days gone by ( see used market ) - with tighter and more rigid bearings than any of the above current production - are Technics EPA, Micro MAX, SAEC 4xx and most notably (no surprise...) Fidelity Research FR-64s (this has the best energy handling and transfer of any tonearm).
These are all 10" tonearms.
D. |
Sure, about everyone of us here do envy Mike Lavigne for that room.
However - in an imperfect world (read: the one we all are living in...) we can still strive for perfection in audio reproduction even if we will never approach it.
Not sitting in an acoustical perfect room should in no way keep one from trying to bring or lure the best possible performance from its equipment.
And then there is the ear ........ and the related processor and hard disk creating the experience of hearing.
Imperfect too...... |
Darkmoebius, agreed.
BTW - most smaller rooms have much less problems with standing waves in the critical area. One of my friends has a top tier system in a rather small room (15' x 16 x 8 ). His woofers are DSP controlled and this system features absolutely superb, clean, dynamic bass performance right down to 18 hz.
No one believes this when entering the room and it is always jaw-dropping hearing a large orchestra in full swing in this room.
My own room which is more than double the size is much more troubled with standing waves in a much more critical frequency range.
I solved my problems by precisely calculating the standing waves frequency and the position of the dips and peaks.
Then I moved my listening place to a spot where all was pretty flat.
Marvelous.
But moving 2 feet to the left or right ruins the bass response for the listener.
Well - as we can't really argue with physics we have to work with it following it's rules. |
In general ( terrible term in itself.... ) the horizontal moving mass of all tangential ( linear ) tonearms is much higher than with any pivot tonearm.
The armpipe of the linear tonearm first needs to be deviated from the zero error line to move. then the whole assembly with the bearing/housing moves. It does so by the lever of the armpipe ( reason for short pipes with Versa Dynamics and Souther - but they have other problems, due to this super short armpipe). All this force - the force needed to move the whole tonearm - is applied at the stylus/cantilever/suspension of the cartridge.
The passive linear tracking tonearm needs kind of negative feedback loop to move forward.
The lever only acts when there is an error first.
I think anyone can illustrate the situation in a minute on a sheet of paper with the force vectors - it really nice clarifies the point.
The movement of the linear tonearm is a chain of error-correction-error-correction. The force takes action at the stylus first and declines the cantilever - then the armpipe follows with the bearing/housing behind.
Not a healthy situation for any cartridge.
I love the principle of linear tracking due to its theoretical advantage of zero tracking error. Its just that in the experience working with the various designs offered to the audiophile in the past 4 decades since the Rabco saw the light of day, none could overcome the inherent mechanical problems which ultimately nulls and voids the theoretical advantages in the long term.
A problematic situation for the cartridge (a working situation it was not designed for...). A problematic situation for the energy transfer abilities of the tonearm due to anything, but a tight, rigid bearing ( in real world ).
I would love to see a linear tonearm fulfilling the promises of the theoretical basic concept.
But zero tracking error is not everything in tonearm design.
Once minimized, there are several other aspects which too do have strong influence to the sonic quality of the performance. |
Dear Pryso - as a more direct answer to your question 02-22-10 directed to me - the "stress" on the cantilever mounted in a pivot tonearm (if we leave skating-force aside for a moment and address the force vector only, which promotes the movement of the tonearm.. ) is very different from the one applied by guiding a linear tracker.
The derivation force in the linear tracker adds a force to the stylus which is about 90 degrees off - i.e. in the linear line - towards the "normal" (read: in pivot tonearm) force which does (normally...) point towards the pivot point of the tonearm.
The cartridge and its cantilever ( every cartridge - even DECCA/London and IKEDA with their "string" holding the "vertical" cantilever or arc in position) are designed to address that ("normal") force only and thats why that "linear derivation force" in a linear tracker puts indeed - no matter how careful set-up, leveled etc. - an additional stress on the cantilever/suspension system.
And it does so in a way the cartridge was not designed for to withstand for long.
A short sketch on white paper will immediately illustrate the forces and the dilemma. |
See - in most every high-end device there are 2 or 3 custom-built/designed and extremely expensive parts that are built by a division of the NASA or at least by a very special secret JAN-company which usually would never manufacture them due to cost reasons.
But as high-end manufacturers would never spare any $ if they can spend it for the better of their customers and the equipment they do grace this world with - they go for this special part.
So much for marketing.
Raul and I are both a bit into tonearm design and as a side-effect into ball-bearings.
In Germany there are a few nice companies in the area of Schweinfurt/Bavaria - not too far away from me.
Ever heard of SKF Kugelfischer, Fichtel & Sachs ?
If you drive a high-performance car (Porsche, Audi, Maybach, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes to name but a few...) you will find them in the critical areas.
This was the heart of precision ball-bearing manufacturing in Germany even 100 years back (and a prime target on the bomb list of the allies during WW 2 - for good reason).
It still is now. Their best miniature sealed ball-bearings (I mean: the very best the german ball-bearing industry has to offer to the public - precision grade AEBC 11) will set you back about US$70-90 each if you buy them in very small quantities. With 100+ the price drops fast and to about 60%.
But of course - these are no match for custom grade ball-bearings for audio applications.
So let me correct my initial comment on the Triplanar's bearings:
it ( the Triplanar ) has of course the one and only best ball-bearings and the bearings used in it are several grades above the best used in any other device on this planet - money no object.
I hope my humble apologies for not getting this right in the first. |
Darkmoebius, if you are really interested about pivot vs linear on the same TT and with competitive cartridges in a true top-flight set-up, you should get in touch with Thuchan.
He has everything from ET 2.5, Goldmund T-3F, Kuzma Airline, the big SAEC 12", DaVinci 12", Kuzma 4Point, FR-66s with all the top cartridge you can name on 2 Micro Seiki 8000, Goldmund Reference, Garrard 501, TX-1000 Naka, Continuum Criterion and Kelch Reference.
He can shine some light.
BTW - it always depends on the rigidity and construction of the cantilever/suspension system of a given cartridge whether it reacts fast to the forces in a linear tonearm (read: wears out fast...) or whether it can withstand the slight abuse for much longer.
In general, cartridges with low compliance are less sensitive to fast wear-out.
High compliance cartridges with high body weight are apparently the most vulnerable. |
Pryso, well - ABEC 7 isn't bad. It's good and heads away from playground marbles.
That there still are higher levels of precision ( = less friction + less noise ) doesn't mean the "7" isn't good.
A single ABEC 7 ball-bearing in miniature size will set you back about $14.
If bought in 100+ quantities it will be down to $8/pc.
That's about 1/10 the price of an ABEC 11.
ABEC11 are used in high precision laser linear slides and µm-measurement devices.
We see 60 cent brass RCAs jacks in $6k phono stages and 35 cent signal-coupling capacitors in $12k line stages.
In this world a ABEC 7 ball-bearing is already more than I expect to see in a modern high-end tonearm.
Frankly, I think you'll have a hard time finding a ball-bearing higher up the ABEC-scale in any other top-flight pivot tonearm. |
Nilthepill, let me suggest to give a listen to a top-flight linear tonearm in direct comparison to a top-flight 12" pivot tonearm with the very same cartridge.
You may be in for a surprise.
The "force problem" of the linear tracker is inherent in the design - you may clean the bearings (and should do so anyway), but you do not alter the mechanical dilemma.
I have had several top flight linear tonearms and I certainly do like the logic idea behind the principle.
However - with todays cartridges (with the way cartridges are designed and mechanically built) the forces in any linear tonearm are medium to long time suicide for any suspension.
What we need to overcome the problem is a linear tracker which has an automatic feed of the complete moving assembly of the tonearm.
We need to eliminate the progression from the stylus.
This can be done, but will be really expensive, as it can not deal with linear progression, but need to be in short-time-loop with the real groove-spacing of the LP on the platter.
Once this is done, the full theoretical advantage of the linear tonearm will be obtained.
What still will be an issue after that problem is eliminated, remains the less than perfect stiffness and hardness of the bearing.
A great pivot tonearm has only the drawback of tracking error.
A great linear tonearm has a bundle of drawback by design - the zero error tracking being its only strong point.
Would love to see a linear tonearm addressing these points. |
Dear Cjfrbw, the pixie dust goes extra - its the MK2 version..... (and then you still have to think/dream/imagine/muse about the most beautiful vision - otherwise it won't work according to Barry). |
Dear Nandric, he means "tongue in cheek"...... |
Dear Lewm, as far as I know, Atmasphere should be very knowledgeable about the Triplanar.
I had the Triplanar III for 2 years on my turntable.
As far as memory goes, it was needle into ball-bearing (similar to Technics EPA - but back then with less refined bearings compared to the older japanese tonearm).
As most of us discuss tiny differences in sound, we should assume, that the better bearing with less friction will - should ... - have some sonic influence to the better. It certainly has on blue paper and in theory.
If we do not try to strive for the technically best component in every construction component, we should not claim that something is "the best" or "can't be bettered" ( I am not quoting anybody here, but just use the omnipresent high-end hype...).
If there is a better - in the sense of the technical use and benefit - component to be incorporated into a given design, there is no reason not to use it - no reason aside from money...... |
Atmasphere is absolutely correct.
"The idea that a pivoted arm of correct effective mass is going to induce greater side-to-side excursion than an air-bearing straight-tracking arm strains credulity."
I would even say it neglects fundamental aspects of mechanic and physic.
But nothing in physics can be obvious enough not to be questioned if it doesn't fit the preference of an audiophile. Must have been a test of true insight and scientific brilliance.
Oh my. |
Dear Oilmanmojo, let me briefly add that the vertical mass in the best linear trackers does indeed match the mass in most pivot tonearms.
But the horizontal moving mass is a completely different manner. In the pivot tonearm the mass in more or less equally dissipated on both sides of the bearing - i.e. on two antagonistic levers.
As it is moving around a center it puts no additional force on the stylus (if the bearing is any good....) especially so, as the bearing, armpipe (aside from slight off-set...) and cantilever are in line.
In the linear tonearm the horizontal mass is pushed forward by one (cruel...) lever only and at the tip-toe of that lever is the stylus /cartridge while most of the mass is far away but has to be moved by your stylus and the suspension.
The force pulling from 90° off which is not what your cartridges' suspension system was made for.
This dilemma was minimized by attempts as the ones of Lou Souther and Versa Dynamics with ultra short armpipe - only to add problems in other areas (very sensible to wrap/height changes in vinyl (the Versa Dynamic did feature vacuum hold-down for good reason - it is mandatory with its tonearm)).
I still believe that the striking and logic promise of linear tonearm will one day bring out a design addressing all the big problems - but so far this has not been done.
I haven't seen yet a linear tonearm really taking into account the way the suspension system of any cartridge is working. |
Unless a linear tonearm murders your cartridge in the very first days, you will hardly notice any effect till you dismount it and realize that your cantilever is off line.
Why ?
Because it is a constant small decrease in quality and sound over time. Our brain and ear won't react to very tiny rather constant changes - there are no benchmarks to verify the changes.
So in the end - how does it sound ?
You'll never know. You may like the sound of a linear tracker.
I've too.
As long as you do not notice its shortcomings. Once you detect them in the sonic signature, the magic is gone forever.
I have owned and used for several years side by side the Triplanar, Graham, ET2 2.5, Goldmund T3F, Air Tangent 2B and Reference to name the more prominent ones and contenders from both "camps".
The mechanical stress showed its results over time - it wasn't the same in all linear trackers ( the ET2 was best when very carefully set-up (= leveled and painstakingly rewired with ultra flexible litz-wire which finally did NOT interfere with the progression...) and running with twice the air pressure as recommended by its manufacturer) .
The originally question of this thread was - as stated by Mepearson - whether the linear tonearms as superior performers by nature.
In my opinion they are not.
THere are plain mechanical and real-life trade-offs in their concept and so far there is no linear tracker on the market which does address all these problems.
The theoretical geometrical advantage can't be denied.
But then it is corrupted by the need of derivation for progression - so far as well in passive as in motorized linear tonearms.
All these conceptional musings do not mean that a linear tracker can't put up an impressive sonic performance.
So you may like its sound for good reason.
BUt on the way up to the very top of Mt Everest the air gets thin and on the last two tracks to the summit the linear tonearms give in - not enough oxygen to fuel their lungs any more.
In direct contest with the best pivots their geometrical advantage becomes very tiny - their bearing and mechanical problems begin to show.
Again - I love the linear principle in tonearms.
But we yet have to see one fulfilling the promise and addressing all issues. |
Dear Darkmoebius, if indeed
..."In which case, it all boils down to what sounds best in each particular system and owner's mind." ...
then all discussion is kind of waste of time - isn't it ?
This is similar to discussion about religious issues. In the end - when one party runs out of arguments - the final defensive statement will always be "but I believe".
Here is all comes down to "but I like the sound".
Fine.
In my point of view this is the ultimate thorn-wall against progression.
But then progression in itself was already judged as an erratic way of life by some greek philosophers 2400+ years ago.
Which shines a philosophical spotlight on analog high-end audio.
Now - isn't that nice..... |
Darkmoebius, sorry, but I doubt that you will find a cartridge designer/manufacturer with as wide experience in real-world practical audio analog life as several A'goners like Raul, Dougdeacon, Dan_Ed, Syntax, Thuchan to name just a few.
If you want to know about the virtues of a new Ferrari (now Mercedes...) racing car you should better ask Michael Schumacher - he most likely can tell you much more than any of the cars designers ( because he actually drives the car - and he is a much better driver than any of the designers/engineers...).
Furthermore they rarely know about the working history of a cartridge they get for repair/exchange. As too many audiophiles do know too little about set-up ( I have seen about 350 cartridge/tonearm set-ups/alignments so far over the past 30 years in other audiophiles systems. Not 3 of them were actually correct in all parameters - so much for real-life experience) , damage by improper set-up is the rule - not the exception.
The answer to the "million dollar question" is so clear and obvious that there in fact is no question. The physical/mechanical situation - at least under working conditions on this planets surface - is a (sorry...) fact and as such out of real question. |
Frogman, I do rather choose physical and technical facts in audio discussion, as sonic impressions are purely individual and can't be transferred nor put into correct perspective.
Unless you were familiar with me as a person, my taste, opinions, background, preferences in sound and sound reproduction - my personal impressions and statements of the sonic virtues of a given component are just blank phrases to you or anybody else.
However - I too take the ET 2 (and especially the ET 2.5 ) any day heads above the SME V.
The ET2 was always THE best buy among linear tonearms in specific.
But the sonic difference between the two tonearms is not a difference between pivot vs linear. The impression that many audiophile experienced with the SME V ( kind of dull, live-less sound with an over-prominent upper bass ) has to do with its very design and a few construction details which added up to an unhappy marriage.
Anyway - exchange of opinions is - if not fortified by empirical (and thats the virtue of physics and technical aspects..) arguments which at least can be verified and re-verified by others. |
Cutting lathe/cutting head can not be compared to a linear tonearm at all.
A cutting head is not tracking a groove.
It is engraving it into a virgin vinyl. Thats why its active. It doesn't care for the groove margin - it literally creates it.
There are 12" tonearms out there which do feature a rigidity in both their armpipe and bearing which is the equal to the very best 9 and 10" tonearms. |
Hello Pgtaylor, the original idea of the team around Mr. Robertson-Aikman of SME turned against them.
Indeed - as Atmasphere already pointed out - it is resonance inside the magnesium armpipe. While all done and designed in the best intention,the shape of the magnesium armpipe with the widest diameter at the bearing does somehow amplify and ill-control armwand inherent resonance. The heavy pre-tension of the bearings doesn't ease things in this manner at all.
However - there is something you can do to lessen the effect and better the sonic performance of your SME V:
- do get "blue-tec" or something similar. Do apply small amounts (about the size of a cent) at the widest diameter of the armpipe and close to the headshell. It looks ugly, it will increase the effective moving mass, but it will dampen the unwanted inherent resonance quite well.
The sound will open up and will get more "air".
The SME V is a somehow fine example of a very impressive design approach with very consequent execution - cost little to o object indeed.
However - here two design features implemented with the very best of intentions combined to an unwanted side-effect.
Thank you - and Hiho as well - for your kind comments on my posts. Nice to get some positive feedback.
Cheers,
D. |
Don't you think we should open up two new threads: one for the Talea (wonder anyway why this hasn't been done yet...) and one for the Thales.....? |
Individual - yet subjective empirical... - audiophile impressions versus mechanical laws..... |
Mikelavigne, science can long explain why bumble bees fly .....
You are referring to days long gone by while using a phrase abused today. However - long term subjective observations are always subjective.
Logic - isn't it ?
The fact - which I do not deny - that in certain individual linear set-ups the owners did not observe any damage or problems doesn't prove anything, but that the respective owners did not observe any problems........
I neither imply that any of the respective users did not observe correctly or that his impressions were wrong.
What I still say, is that mechanical laws are set aside with little to no second thought if they do not fit audiophile preferences or impressions or ownership.
I had the Air Tangent, ET2, ET 2.5, T3F, Forsell and Versa Dynamics (the last one for only a short period however).
I know my impressions and even if each of these linear trackers was tempting and promising in several ways, me owning them didn't wipe out the clear mechanical dilemma which most (NOT all - the Versa Dynamics had other problems) of them did face by design. |
Hi Darkmoebius, I guess we would rather need graphs from spectrometers to show energy storage and resonance built-up in tonearm wands to illustrate the physical issues I was talking about.
Water decay and frequency sweeps will do for cross-overs and speaker building, but not here for tonearm/cartridge issues (or in case they really would do, the respective tonearm's performance would be so poor that it is hardly worth discussing at all...).
My sonic descriptions (I knew that would be coming back against me.... ;-)....) were done to "illustrate" the sonic results of the bearing rigidity and the mechanical problems in linear trackers.
Otherwise you will find very few sonic statements in any of my posts.
From my point of view (sorry for personalizing again..) the mechanical model and the resulting issues (and the lack of addressing designs..) are so obvious that its kind of frustrating. |
Dgarretson you are right - a very short linear tonearm (like Souther or Versa Dynamics) can indeed feature very little horizontal effective mass.
But much more important it features a very small (= short) lever.
As said earlier - the very short linear tonearms do not show the big problem with the long lever and subsequently the huge lateral force applied by this lever to promote progression.
THese short linear trackers (and this was recognized by their designers) do have problems with not only warped records, but with every little tiny height difference in record surface (and there usually are hundreds of tiny valleys and hills for your stylus while tracking a record groove).
The problem here is, that the vertical lever is very short too and thus every little tiny height difference on the record is huge for the cantilever and stylus. Huge VTA/SRA changes in a long row - up and down the groove highway over the many lovely hills and valleys of the lake district in the midlands of Britain.....
Seriously - as Mentioned before - the problems of the linear trackers are all mechanical issues of the most basic mechanical laws and models.
It is not about friction - it is about long and short levers and the point that the stylus commands the progression.
These problems can all be solved. No doubt about that. "We, the people..." long have all needed electronic and mechanical tools at hand to design and produce a linear tracking tonearm allowing any cartridge to track at zero error line without applying any lateral force on the cantilever at any time.
A linear tracker with groove margin compliant progression independent from any derivation of the cartridge/stylus/armwand.
It is not a big deal, but it has not been done yet.
That was all I am saying so far.
I certainly do not want to tease any owner of linear tonearms. I too did own most major linear tonearms too.
Each of them had its promises and was tempting in one or two sonic details. But none so far did address all the issues in linear tonearm design.
It is not about any heroic design attempt either - there are no heroes in audio, thus we won't see any heroic design.
After all, a hero is someone overcoming his/her fear, fighting the battle, eventually surviving and maybe finds someone who remembers and tells the story.
The physical model of linear tracking tonearm with its force vectors is there. It is no secret.
But just because there are some linear trackers out there since the early 1960ies, doesn't mean that the concept has already been brought to its promises. |
Samujohn, the problem of the short vertical lever is independent of the bearing principle. Even a (purely theoretical of course...) very short pivot tonearm would face the very same problem. This has nothing to do with friction or bearing type.
Problem is, that most do assume, that a record is flat. It is anything but that. Even the very best possible pressings out there (King or JVC/Japan) are a nice landscape with countless hills and valleys under a microscope.
Thats why very long tonearms do provide - independent of cartridge or mass - kind of more stable sonic picture with more inner peace. They have less change in VTA/SRA. |
C1ferrari, Darkmoebius et al, JCarr is very active on Audiogon too...... see threads about Lyra and Fidelity Research Cartridges. |
Dear Nilthepill, ++++++Another plus, IME, for linear arms ( that hasn't been talked about) is that they are able to track more readily than the pivot arms in case of playing a record with very low freq content (examples- techno music- Deepchord, Pole, Luciano, Patha du Prince,etc). This may be unique to my set ups. Let others chime in here.+++++
.... in your IME, but then you should give a listen indeed to some decent set-up (they even do not have to be set-up perfectly to show off) Graham P2, Triplanar or FR6Xs pivot tonearms.
Your personal impressions might very well change direction by 180°.
I for one did listen on the very same turntable with the very same cartridges, cable and all other periphery identical.
Especially in the very low level the linear trackers are no match for the very best pivot designs in terms of speed, inner details, maximum dynamics and tight, hard punch. Most linear trackers du built up a big, fat but soft and not really low bass which might sound fascinating with certain set-ups, but not if your woofers go really down and not if the set-up is able to provide air, freshness and color, speed and minute detail in the lower registers.
Still fascinating for me to watch the ignorance of the simple and obvious mechanical model and the resulting issues.
It is still IMEs and IMHOs, personal dislikes and choosing side by ownership. I had them - almost all. The day a linear tracker shows up which does address the obvious issues of the mechanical model, I am in the first group to buy it. And I will do so before any "sound report" or sonic description by anybody. Simply because it can be seen in the mere design of a linear tracking tonearm, whether it will perform up to the promise of the concept or not.
But by now I finally realize that I am only spoiling the party here.
Tonarm design is mechanics (static and dynamic) and geometry only.
Here is a lot of the old conflict between religious want-to-believe and cruel, yet plain, scientific research and description. |
Hi C1ferrari, I had 2 professional Studer C-37 tubed stereo reel-o-reel machines with about 120 early Westminster, RCA, Mercury and others 2-track 7.5 and 15 ips tapes back in the 1990ies. The rock solid sound of a good r-t-r machine run with a great 2-track 15 ips tape has always been my reference for ohysical presence in sound reproduction. I abandoned r-t-r in the later 1990ies due to lack of supply in original tapes. Furthermore I could finally get the very same physical presence and dynamic from analog cartridge/tonearm and that did it for me. I got insane offerings for my two C37 Studer machines and the tape collection and let them go. |
Mikelavigne, I certainly want to set one thing straight: I do have strong opinions about sonics, their differences and relations to components and synergy effects.
And could express them.
I just think that it is a waste of time to display them in public. As there are only a small handful of Audiogoners who actually know from first-hand experience me in person, my preferences, taste, background, audio set-up and therefor my subjective perspective and taste in reproduced sound.
For all others would be just empty blah-blah - or more precisely what Hiho said.....
I can relate sonic signatures to technical design features and certain electrical and/or mechanical interactions between components inside an audio chain.
A lot what is posted here on Audiogon by some is nothing more than posing and congratulation each other what fine equipment the other owns and what a nice if troublesome passion this all is.
For me it is about performance and why and how a certain component can (if it has the potential...) can be brought to show off its virtues.
This may sound calvinistic and like cold german technical view to some. |
Mikelavigne, no problem at all - I just felt that I could clarify a point or two.
This is indeed supposed to be fun, but too many audiophiles do take critic about components they own very personal and too often the components are the center of attention and admiration.
In my point of view there are no such things like "musical or emotionally involving" turntables, amplifiers, cables, cartridges or speakers.
To name them so is almost a contradiction in terms and nothing but a clear proof for the overwhelming attention the audio components do get from most audiophiles.
There are only audio components which do degrade the recorded sound during reproduction.
All do - the better less, the very best very little. |
Hi C1ferrari, it is not limited to direct-to-disc recordings. There are a lot great recording out there which can - tracked with the "right" cartridge/tonearm combination - supply the full bodied sound and physical presence one gets from the better r-t-r machines.
It is rarely achieved and there are only very few combinations of LOMC/tonearms out there which can get you that. And this is related to mechanical synergy effects mainly.
But that would be another thread ..... and for sure would raise strong and widespread antagonism. |
Samujohn, you are right - equalization can (and in pro audio it is a truly mandatory all-present tool) enhance playback intelligibility.
But the result is neither true to the original spirit of high fidelity, nor does it show the real thing - applied on the frequency-band as a whole it just enhances the illusion in a very special way.
I too apply equalization in the very low 2 octaves of the audio band - to adapt woofer response to the room and the respective cabinet. Here it is of the utmost importance and a mandatory for me.
From the upper bass/lower midrange upwards it because hostile territory and does degrade the sound while smoothing the response.
It is a bit curing the sonic demon's with Luzifer's help.....
Eq in audio must be applied with the utmost care - it is tempting for sure, but if applied in higher dose it can and will spoil the whole lunch.
It is very reminiscent of illegal pharmacy in the way it works. |
If you want the 2nd order distortions of the better triodes, you can have them with transistors too. It is a matter of design - not tube vs. Transistors. But indeed - this is something for other threads. |
Dear Samujohn, no need for a thread. This has all been covered widely and by better (= more knowledgeable) audiophiles in the early 1980ies and published in the french magazine L'audiophile. After all, transistors started as tubes without vacuum and heater.....
But of course - you are welcome to start a thread about this. Even if there is little to discuss, - the technical tools and schematics are long at hand.
Whether a preamplifier of amplifier is based on tubes or transistors is not the question. You can make a transistor sounding VERY tubbey and a tube-based amplifier with ultra-clean, controlled and extreme detailed sound (and yes - with ultra low tight bass too).
It's a matter of the respective schematic and design and what you want to get - not tubes vs transistors. |
Darkmoebius, sorry to say in this context, that Syntax is right. While I do have respect for the brands you listed, the only "field" where the "better" succeeded for several millenia was ( and today it is beginning to change even here....) military/warfare.
In all other aspects related with demand and supply it was always the cheaper - or more easy to access or operate.
But Audiogon is not the forum for philosophy. |
Samujohn, all what you listen - each and everything including the reel-to-reel (invented by AEG) - was developed or its design and research which led to development was requested by military.
Hobby audio was there before WW2 - already alive and kick'in in the roaring twenties.
And yes, - I know the Tact very well and know how tempting it is. But this is not high-fidelity in the sense of the idea or phrase. It is one thing to adapt to room interaction (or better: to try to adapt to it...) but it is a different beast to alter the emitted sound to suit ideas or ideals.
It is a suitable way - no question about that - but it is not high fidelity and it is not an idea I would ever follow. |
Darkmoebius - and high-end went back all the way to the 1920/30ies and today you have 18W SE-Amplifiers (Lamm, WAVAC etc.) and super expensive full-range drivers and speakers which usually do outperform a Linkwitz-filtered 4 way speaker with a cross-over so complex that what the amplifier actually sees, is not a coil or a "load" but a black hole.....
Same with tonearms (hurray - we are back !!) - there are 30 and 40 year old designs which still can teach most "modern" designs a few things and do. |
Dear Darkmoebius, in teh early 1930ies you could order from H.H.Scott a "Quaranta". If you did so - and included all possible features including your own recording device with cutting lathe... - it would have cost you US$5000+ in the early 1930ies.
Compared in status and buying power of the day it surpasses anything that is marketing today just to fulfill the demand of some east asian audio collectors to show off their wealth within their peer group.
There were always options to spend real big money on audio. You could get AEG/Telefunken/Siemens or ERPI WE Mirrorphonic to built and set-up a cinema-like audio set-up in your private home. Things like these were done both sides of the Atlantic in the years between the 2 big wars and they did cost more than any of us could possibly imagine.
The world was there before any of us - there is nothing new today - just more hype, less seriousness (in design - not in talking about...), less education and less background in audio. |
