Well Darkmo, I have a purpose-built dedicated audio room. My room is roughly 16' W x 23' D with 9' ceilings. It does have an L shape towards the back of the room where the width opens up another 5' or so. The front half of my room has extensive room treatments with acoustic panels that each are 2' x 4' by 4" thick. My room does bass. As far as room treatments, my next treatment will be for the front half of the ceiling.
I think the argument that some people make that linear tracking arms can't reproduce the bottom end are patently wrong. We can debate that possibly pivoted arms have better bass (maybe deeper with more punch and slam), but not that linear tracking arms are incapable of reproducing bass. I have pointed out low bass before on LPs to others who couldn't hear it until they inserted a sub into their system because the fundamentals I was describing were lower than their main speakers could go without a subwoofer much to their surprise.
After reading all of the comments posted, I am tempted to try another pivoted arm higher up on the food chain than I previously owned. I will not sell my ET-2 though unless/until I find something that clearly smokes it. I have been down that road one too many times in the past where you buy something that is supposed to be superior to what you own only to find that you made a mistake and you have to go out and buy what you used to own again to get back to the quality of sound that you once had. |
Raul-you are right. The Audio Technica is one humble looking tone arm. Outright fugly in fact. |
02-21-10: Dertonarm
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. Absolutely, I agree. I'm just pointing out that accurate reproduction of low frequencies(actually all) is probably pretty rare without proper room dimensions and/or extensive acoustic treatment. What we perceive to be "clean bass" and what actually is, can be two different things. Sounds like Mepearson has done of a good job of getting his room out of the way of the music. From personal experience, I had a hell of time trying to tame my old 25'x16'x8'living room(just for music) by speaker positioning alone. I had free will to place everything wherever I wanted in the room(being single and all). And that was with dual subwoofers placed non-symmetrically around the room. I never really won the acoustics battle. After looking a photos of a lot of professional reviewers rooms, I have to seriously question their ability to discern individual audio component frequency reproduction anomalies from their acoustic environment. And when they talk about the accuracy, or inaccuracy, of low frequency reproduction...Well, the brain is obviously a very powerful machine. |
Dear Mepearson: I don't understand why you follow posting that I think the argument that some people make that linear tracking arms can't reproduce the bottom end are patently wrong. " ++++
no one including me posted that, what some of us posted is that the pivot tonearms are better in that critical frequency range.
Btw, that AT tonearm is one of the best " keep secrets ", I can't see how you can have a better performer at almost any price, higly recommended for any one that could think that your today tonearm is one of the best out there.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Raul-Does the AT tonearm have provisions for anti-skating? I couldn't see it on the picture.
Does anyone else have any experience with the AT tonearm? |
Dear Mepearson: Yes it does. You can see it here:
http://www.vinylengine.com/library/audio-technica/at-
1503.shtml
I don't think many " audiophiles "/high end own it
because this tonearm are an almost unknow item for the
" audiophiles ", what a normal audiophile knows is
normal tonearms: Triplanar, Graham, SME, etc, etc.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
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. |
Dear Mepearson: http://www.vinylengine.com/library/audio-technica/at-1503.shtml
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Derton, regarding your 2/20 post detailing your experience with various arms, one point is not clear to me. As I read it, one of your main concerns relates to ". . . stress on the cantilever/suspension system of the cartridge mounted. And it does so by design." with linear arms.
Well and good, but since groove spacing varies over the side of a record, automated arm movement for playback is out of the question. Thus even a pivoted arm moves as the stylus "leads" the cartridge/arm across the record. Is this not also a stress problem with a pivoted arm? Or is this all a function of the effective mass of the pivoted arm versus that of a linear arm? Therefore not as much of a problem with pivoted arms? Not being an engineer, I'm over my head here. |
Pryso,
With a pivoted arm, the cantilever IS stressed, to some extent, in pulling the arm into the new position as the needle moves toward the center of the record. However, the pivot and fulcrum mechanical advantage means much less force is needed to move the arm around the pivot point as compared to dragging a very heavy (in the horizontal plain) linear tracking arm. Again, this is just the THEORY; whether this actually translates into a meaningful issue is another matter. |
02-22-10: Larryi
However, the pivot and fulcrum mechanical advantage means much less force is needed to move the arm around the pivot point as compared to dragging a very heavy (in the horizontal plain) linear tracking arm. Again, this is just the THEORY; whether this actually translates into a meaningful issue is another matter. Exactly, I wonder if this is really significantly so in the real world? Is there even a way to measure this lateral force/stress on the cantilever/motor assembly? |
Anyone know someone who has a Fidelity Research FR 64s for sale? |
Is there even a way to measure this lateral force/stress on the cantilever/motor assembly? it would seem to be simple to place some sort of sensor between the linear arm housing (or the cartridge body) and press against it. the smallest force required to get the arm moving from rest would be the maximum amount of force required. it might be impossible to measure the force required on a pivoted arm since the arm is able to flex in multiple planes. how could you isolate the resistance in one plane? since i removed the dampening fluid from my arm the lateral resistance of the arm has got to be negligable. it's the stress of that initial starting force on the canteliver which potentially could cause premature cartridge failure. my experience is that a linear tracker with vaccuum is the least stressful environment for a cartridge since the record is always flat. my favorite Colibri (a fragile cartridge if ever there was one) lasted 5 years on the Rockport before i accidently broke the canteliver while dusting two years ago. my linear tracking arm only has two issues; and that is to make sure that the lateral shaft that the arm housing slides on is perfectly level, and that the shaft is clean. cleaning is simply a matter of sliding the arm back and forth once prior to using. i check the level by tapping on the arm to unweight it at various places along the shaft to make sure it stays in place. if it drifts to one side i adjust the plinth leveling on the air suspension. it needs adjustment once or twice a year and takes 30 seconds. |
Lewm, I built a servo for the Rabco (which uses contacts, not relays) so the contact had only to get below 1 Megohm and the motor would run. Then I put a large capacitor across the motor so it would ramp up slowly and turn off slowly. The result was that the motor was always on, and would set its speed according to the rate that the LP grooves dictated. This eliminated 95% of the hassle of that arm- it was reliable and quite precise as far as linear tracking was concerned.
Later I had an ET but after eating a few cantilevers, I ditched it. Obviously I had the wrong cartridges in it; you could sit can watch the cantilever move back and forth as the arm tried to negotiate the LP. If you have ever seen the arm 'wobble' you know what I am talking about.
There are cantilevers that are stiff enough so this effect is reduced. What is not known (IOW I have seen no measurements to this effect anywhere) is how much the cantilever actually moves to make the arm move. IOW if the cantilever flexes by only a few degrees (which will not be visible to the naked eye) than any advantage of straight tracking is lost to radial tracking where this does not occur (of course this phenomena could occur with a radial tracker too, but most cartridge designers are expecting a certain effective mass in the arm and so this should not be a problem).
Short arm tubes such as seen in the Souther have two issues. The first is that the arm bearings cannot be in the plane of the LP so tracking pressure will change as warps and bass frequencies are negotiated. The second is that warps will cause wow.
BTW to be clear about something: its impossible to have an air bearing that has no slop. If there was no slop, there would be no place for the air to be in the bearing. With precision machining and tight tolerances, the arm can be poised on its cushion of air, and not move too much- until it is disturbed by the motion of the cartridge. The fact is that the arm has to move back and forth and yet stay exactly on its locus. If it moves even slightly out of locus that will be interpreted by the cartridge as a coloration. Its a bit of a trick.
I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees that air pressure and holding tanks to promote stable pressure are important to the sound of the arm. If that is **not** the case, then I would agree that air bearings work... Right now I have a Triplanar, and I've had several pivoted arms before that, not because I think anyone of them are the state of the art, but because what I think is required in a straight tracker does not exist. I regard radial tracking arms as a temporary solution. |
Atmosphere
"Short arm tubes such as seen in the Souther have two issues. The first is that the arm bearings cannot be in the plane of the LP so tracking pressure will change as warps and bass frequencies are negotiated. The second is that warps will cause wow."
My SOTA has vacuum disc clamping. Severely warped records will not suck down anyway, besides who plays warped records on a decent set up? So how much warp matters anyway? In the same vane, what sort of bass tracking are we talking about?
Wow is at a certain frequency range, or put another way, if I can't hear it, is it there?
regards,
Sam |
Sometimes an LP is rare enough that you put up with what you are able to find. All LPs have some warp. When speed variations are introduced, its likely that when they are subtle you are more likely to hear them as a wavering in the soundstage.
I had a Cosmos for a long time- it is nice to have the records be really flat. |
I think the difference in the stress on a cantilever caused by a straight line arm vs a pivoted arm has to do with inertia, primarily. Lets assume there is zero friction. The cantilever is therefore bearing only the inertia (in the horizontal plane) of either a pivoted arm or a straight line arm. Inertia is related to mass and is the property of a static object to stay static and of a moving object to continue to move in the same direction and at the same speed (in the absence of friction). In the case of a pivoted arm, because it is rotating with respect to the pivot, which does not move at all, the net inertial mass is lower than for an air-bearing straight line arm, where all parts of the arm from front to rear have to be moved equally by the force on the cantilever alone. Many air-bearing arms have very low mass arm wands to compensate for this issue. Then in the real world there also IS a force on the cantilever necessary to overcome friction, to add to the problem. The cantilever has a huge mechanical advantage in overcoming friction at the pivot, but no such mechanical advantage in overcoming friction at the air bearing. Obviously, all these forces are tiny, else the cantilever would not last more than a few mm of travel. I am not about to argue that these things nullify the potential goodness of linear tracking. |
Lewm, Exactly!
About ten years ago I did initial sketches on a tone arm that used a mechanical track that had zero bearing slop. The are was otherwise conventional in that it used a pivot like a radial tracking arm, and a servo that was light-beam activated. Of course I never built it, instead I handed it off to a tone arm manufacturer, but it seems like its not likely to see the light of day anytime soon if it ever does. But it is a design that solves this problem.
I own an LP cutting lathe, and every time I look at the lead screws and do the setup on the cutterhead itself, I think about doing a linear tracking arm. Right now its more important to run the lathe than make a tone arm... |
I have used the airbearing arm on three maplenoll tables and have never had a cantilever issue as has been reported in this thread concerning air bearing arms. My experience with the maplenoll is only 5 years but i have been very impressed with the performance. as for hours of use, I spin anywhere from 5 to 15 albums a week so i have racked up quite a few hours on these arms. As i have stated before, i have never owned one of the premier pivot arms so my comparison of the linear arm is to either stock arms on dual and denon tables or a rega rb300 on a gyrodec. But the ability to track tough passages has never been an issue with the maplenoll arms. As for as tracking warped records, my basic ariadne out performed the gyrodec with a rb300 easily. The apollo table with the vacuum hold system has been spectacular. I have modified the original tonearms to move from Aluminum or brass wands to carbon fiber wand along with replacing the headshell and vta adjustment to include an on the fly zlift vta adjustment on my two earlier ariadne tables. These mods had a significant improvement to the performance which i attributed to the increased stiffness of the assembly. These tonearm assemblies are pretty light mass especially since i use the zyx line of cartridges which are pretty light anyway. Having said this, part of the setup is the level adjustment. When properly adjusted, a very slight pressure will move the assembly with ease. When compared to my rega RB300 on my gyrodec, the movement of the airbearing arm is so much smoother. as for the bearing slop, i do not understand the comment completely so I can not comment on it. Sut the arm is very stable. I do dampen my arm slightly. I do not have the breath of experience on all of the tonearms and tables as compared to some of the other guys so please take my comments accordingly. That being said, i do like the maplenoll arms compared to my previous experience with the rega arm |
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. |
Remembers me to the day from my good old times when I was asked after listening to the Goldmund Reference with the T3F Arm which Cartridge I would mount in that Arm? Goldfinger, UNIverse, Olympos or even something more expensive????
My answer was "Go for the cheapest one or to that one you hate most".
I saw the movements from that Arm and the smeared soundstage was one of the results.
But honestly, I guess, that was not the answer the other one wanted to hear :-) |
Excentric records kill all theoretical advantages of passive linear trackers. Doing simple math, you can see a side force as large as up to 1.0 gramm peak applied to the cantilever when say, 200 gramm of slider+arm mass is driven by 1 mm out-of-center record. Cantilever ealisy moves more than 1 degree from centerline under such force. In perfect world of ideal records, when the arm moves accross the record with virtually no acceleration, high lateral mass is a good thing, allowing needle to follow groves while the arm stays steady due to high inertia. From my personal experience with 120 g air tracker, 1-1.5 mm eccentricity is pretty audible, not to mention lead-out groove, where cantilever bouncing becomes scary. |
Well, after starting this thread and reading everything everyone has written, I have decided to give pivoted arms another shot. After numerous emails with Dertonarm, I have decided to buy a Fidelity Research FR64s tonearm. I know Raul thinks the AT is superior, but based on its low resale value, I decided against it. If for some reason I decide I don't like the FR, I am confident I can get my money back. I am looking forward to all of the parts coming in (I bought the arm, a new TNT armboard from VPI, and a NOS Orsonics headshell). It is my hope that this combo will sound better than my ET-2 in all parameters. If it does, I will gladly sell the ET-2 and be done with linear tracking arms once and for all. Since the arm is coming from Australia, the headshell from Hong Kong, and the armboard from VPI, it will be awhile before everything arrives. It should be interesting and I hope worthwhile. There must be a reason why the FR64s has a cult following and the value continues to climb. |
Livemusic, Good point about lateral mass. I have lately started using a Dynavector tonearm, which is deliberately designed to present a high mass in the horizontal plane. I can only say it is a great sounding tonearm with lovely bass response. However, I think the possible negative effect of high mass in the horizontal plane is ameliorated (at least) by the pivoted design of the Dyna tonearms. |
In terms of trackability and distortions, not neccesary.
In terms of sonic performance, not neccesary.
I am inclined to think an air-bearing linear arm could sound better than a DC-servo one. There are some good designs during the past few years.
Dan |
Mepearson, not to muddy the waters too much but I spotted a comment from Dertonarm that needs correction: the bearings in the Triplanar as good as you can find. They are custom-built by an aerospace bearing supplier, and are 3 or 4 grades higher in hardness and polish than the bearings found in the SME 5. There is only one manufacturer in the US than can make the bearing and they are the most expensive part of the arm as I understand it. |
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. |
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.
Dertonarm (Threads | Answers) :^))). |
Interesting stuff Dertonarm. Even though they have very solid reputations, the Kuzma arms are obviously way down the "quality audio" scale. Their Stogi arm utilizes ABEC 5 bearings while the Stogi Reference has ABEC 7. This then is likely just above the quality of playground marbles. 8^) |
"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."
Don't forget the magic pixie dust. |
Has anyone compared recent linear and pivot tonearms on a 2-arm TT at the same time w/ the same cartridge for an A/B comparison? What did you notice?
I guess the affiliated question would be - are there cartridges that work equally as well on the two? Even within the pivot world, some carts sound better on one arm than another.
In the case of lateral force issues mentioned about linear arms, is this more a of mechanical/longevity concern or one of noticeable sonics, too?
Has anyone ever had a cartridge wear out more quickly or be damaged by this lateral force of a linear arm?
I find this whole discussion very, very, interesting and educational and would like to thank all the experienced participants for helping those of us novices understand the issues in layman terms. |
I was about to raise question that DarkMo just did.
"In the case of lateral force issues mentioned about linear arms, is this more a of mechanical/longevity concern or one of noticeable sonics, too? "
I think the discussion somehow got steered towards lateral force comparison and stress on cartridge etc. Which does not mean linear arm are inferior performer.
I also think original poster gave in too soon. I happen to believe that the linear arm are 'overall' superior performer. In my experience ( again I have not had top notch pivot arms in my TT set up at the same time with same cartridge (it would be definitive experiment though, like Darkmoebius suggests) but I do have other two TT set ups with pivot arms and I have optimized these two to death but still, in terms of completeness of notes and air around it as well as center of earth bass ( when present) sets its self apart from the other two TTs. Stand alone the other two TTs sound real good. It is only when you play back to back, the completeness of natural sound reproduction with linear arm is without a doubt 'better' in many ways.
I do agree that lateral force and stress issue are legible concerns. But I tend to Clean the linear travel rod more often to reduce friction. |
Darkmo are there cartridges that work equally as well on the two My experience has been, not really! Perhpas because the cartridge quality parametres for one type of arm are different from those required for the other? I am, of course talking of hi-end cartridges. Maybe a low compliance, rugged construction cartridge would do just as well -- mechanically -- on either type of arm? Say the best type of DJ cartridge, or a Denon 103?? My experience is of course, absurd, as on paper this disparity shouldn't exist -- or should it? |
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. |
Dear Albertporter,There are foreigners in this forum.What
do you mean by :^)))?
Regards, |
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"...... |
Sometimes I feel sad, when I read some posts that there are a few who are not satisfied with some expensive units. So much work from the Designers to sky the latest NASA secrets, the steal some dust from the moon from them to make better sounding bearings, all those friendly journalists who have only ONE goal, to help in the endless search of the best...
and then: We read something no one really wants to know, ok, maybe via private mail, but please, not in public discussions.
When I had my Airline/Triplanar/Davinci/Graham and-some-more I loved the click of the starting compressor, the first move from the Arm to remove the dust, the starting of sound when my cartridge touched the first groove.
I loved it, the respect I got from visiting audiophiles, here they saw, that I am a serious Audiophile. Great time.
After a while I discovered late in the evening that the most used Arm was not that one which worked with air. I asked myself, what happened?
Had it to do something with sound?
I am still on the way to find my answer :-) |
Thank you, Darkmoebius
"Has anyone ever had a cartridge wear out more quickly or be damaged by this lateral force of a linear arm?"
I have used my Souther for many years. Two years ago I sold my old Audio Technica AT150ML and purchased a new Audio technica 150MLX. The Audiogoner who purchased my old cartridge was very complementary in his feedback post concerning the condition and performance of his purchase.
Now I know this is anecdotal, and I do not keep strict track of my playing time, but still, if wear were a serious problem it seems I would know it by now. |
Has anyone compared recent linear and pivot tonearms on a 2-arm TT at the same time w/ the same cartridge for an A/B comparison? What did you notice? yep. currently i have 2 Ortofon A90 cartridges; one on my Garrard 301/Triplaner and one on my Rockport Sirius III. the one on the Rockport only has about 50 hours on it and the other one has about 125 hours. there are no 'unusual' issues with the A90 on the Rockport. it exhibits the same performance advantages of any cartridge i mount on the Rockport. my perspective on this 'issue' that linear trackers are somehow 'stressful' on cartridges is that i have seen none of that at all. as i mentioned in an earlier post in this thread i had a vdH Colibri (a particularly delicately built cartridge) on my Rockport for 5 years with zero issues. as far as other performance problems/limitations from linear arms, again, i don't see them. not all linear trackers are the same. it's likely a much greater challenge to build one to work properly, but it can and has been done. as far as limitations of an air bearing in bass performance, in theory maybe, but again i don't really hear that either when the Rockport arm is optimized. i know Andy Payor certainly does not subcribe to that perspective.....but what does he know? |
DT and Atma-sphere, The Triplanar bearings are needle-type bearings, are they not? Hence I don't know how they would be comparable to ball-type bearings and whether the same quality ratings apply. Of course, they are not from Schweinfurt so obviously could not be so great. Did you ever see the movie "Twelve O'clock High"? Clark Gable and Gregory Peck play two US airforce officers based in England, and the whole issue is bombing those bearing factories at Schweinfurt, every night. Anyway, the stress on bearings in any tonearm is infinitesimal compared to, for example, a wheel bearing in an automobile or a crankshaft bearing. So I think bearings rated 7 and lower would probably not make an audible difference compared to bearings rated 11. |
I am the original poster and I don't think I have "given in" too soon. Rather, I am open to buying and listening to a pivoted tonearm that is considered to be very good if not maybe even great (and of course that is always debatable as well). I have read everyone's arguments for why they think pivoted arms are superior and I am willing to listen again. My last pivoted arm was a JMW 10 arm which is a unipivot design and I was just not a big fan. So now I will go with a Fidelity Research FR64s with a NOS Orsonic headshell and my basically brand new Benz Glider SL. I have numerous tapes I have made of LPs played through my TNT/ET-2 setup recorded at 15 ips 2 track. I will make some new tapes with the new setup and I will have a good basis for comparision besides just memory.
I would like to think that I am open minded and not rigid in my thinking or dogma. If I am rewarded by better sound as a result of this journey, that would be awesome. I am placing my faith in Dertonarm's extensive experience with top-flight linear tracking arms and pivoted arms. I am following his recommendations and we shall see where this leads. I am looking forward to it and certainly don't consider it to be "giving in." As I like to tell people, I always reserve the right to become smarter.
And by the way, even though I used a Van den Hull MC-10 for years on my ET-2 in the past without any problems, I did have a recent issue with a Denon 103R. The cantilver is no longer straight and is now off-center. Whether this was caused by a defect in the 103R or was caused by the ET-2 is open for conjecture. This cartridge has less than 300 hours on it. |
>>Has anyone compared recent linear and pivot tonearms on a 2-arm TT at the same time w/ the same cartridge for an A/B comparison? What did you notice?<<
As I wrote earlier, the Souther Linear Arm was designed to work well with a wide range of phono cartridges, including the low-mass, very high compliance ADC XLM series -- which were designed for for 0.5g tracking force. During the final couple of years of refinement of the Souther design, I did listen to a variety of Souther prototypes and then final production on a Luxman PD444 turntable while a variety of pivoted tonearms were simultaneously mounted on the turntable. A/B comparison with the same model cartdrge was routine, made easy by the two-arms-to-one-source switchbox built into the underside of the Luxman. No, this doesn't qualify as "recent." Pivoted tonearms in rotation were Grace 707, Transcriptors Vestigal, SME 3009, Mayware Formula IV, Infinity Black Widow, and occasionally we had access to a friend's Dynavector 501. A variety of other tonearms passed through our hands for shorter-term audition, including the Signet XK50 and some pretty good Japanese S-arms sourced from dead direct-drive turntables as well as relative exotica like the KMAL.
The striking thing about linear tracking vs. the pivoted arms was the absence in straight line tracking of a subtle "fuzz" that couldn't be tuned out of any of the pivoted set-ups. We certainly tried, painstakingly aligning every tonearm. But in comparison to the Souther linear tracker, pivoted arms that sounded incisive in transient detail outside comparison were made to sound comparatively compromised by subtle blurring of transient clarity. The linear tracker snapped everything into sonic focus that you didn't realize was available until you heard it. Other comparative differences varied by tonearm, though the Souther did consistently also present the 3D soundspace more vividly than did pivoted arms, and to our ears it sounded tonally the most neutral, consistently.
My primary long-term comparative testing of the Souther vs. pvoted tonearms relied on a handful of cartridges, primarily ADC XLM II, Shure V15 III and IV, Denon DL103D, Supex 900, Grace F9R, Adcom CrossCoil. We particularly ran ADC XLM's into the ground in an attempt to show that linear tracking in the Souther would be too stressful to that cartridge's delicate cantilever and suspension. They generally fared worse in the pivoted tonearms. Over two years we couldn't find any evidence of the Souther arm wearing out the XLM sooner than a pivoted tonearm, though the test wasn't scientifically rigorous.
My experience using Souther production tonearms over the next ten or twelve years bore this out. That tonearm is at least one instance of mechanically-coupled passive linear tracking imposing no penalty on cartridge life despite the only lateral motive force being that imposed by the spinning spiral groove, with the cartridge stylus, cantilever and suspension being the means of transmission.
Phil |
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...... |
02-25-10: Dertonarm
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. Technically, there are several readily-available solutions used in other industries that make these tracking/error/stiffness concerns a non-issue. Atmasphere has discussed them before in other threads. Surprisingly, he suggested the same components that I had decided on, myself. The real work is in the control system for the mechanisms. |
Mepearson, I forgot to put a smiley face (;-))at the end of my sentence saying you gave up too early. I did realize that you wanted to try out what you said top notch pivot arms. That IS indeed open minded. In fact, I have plans to install another arm (Triplanar, most likely) with hopefully same cartridge in near future to just expand my horizons- so to speak.
Thanks to 213cobra for better describing sound quality reproduced by linear arm. "....snapped everything into sonic focus that you didn't realize was available until you heard it." " ..also present the 3D soundspace more vividly". What I would like to add further s that organic quality of acoustic space it portrays to make the whole stage as one- one instrument space clearly overlapping each other to make one whole stage, and more sound air propulsing out as a live instrument would. You can 'peak or hear' in the middle of the tone 'thickness' to hear what texture is in between- if it makes any sense. I guess I described it earlier as 'completeness - tone, texture, air lower and higher harmonics - of notes'. It is still hard to describe until you hear it, but may be I described it succinctly enough? Not that pivotal arms don't do this, they do, sure, but linear arm does convincingly more.
Pivotal arms just looks great, they are in vogue and are just more impressive to possess. Wish list- Triplanar, Graham Phantom, Davinci Grandezza, SME V |
>>Has anyone compared recent linear and pivot tonearms on a 2-arm TT at the same time w/ the same cartridge for an A/B comparison? What did you notice?<<
Yes, we did as follows:
Basically in the same system, except the TTs, Scheu Das Laufwerk I with Cartridge Man Conductor II(w/Isolator) and Acoustic Solid Wood Ref with Ortofon AS-212. The cartridge used was an Air-Tight PC-1. Music: classical, jazz, vocals and other instrumental. We played all records once in Acoustic Solid/Ortofon combo(alias: AA combo) and then removed PC-1 and mounted it on Cartridge Man arm on Scheu/Cartridge Man(alias: Scheu combo), and played all the passages again.
In short, the same PC-1 sounded rather different on both setups. Scheu combo, whatever we fine-tuned, would deliver a more relaxed feel as a whole, laid back, a little bit more spacious, violin sounding stunningly "airy" and "real", not thin-sounding, etc.
With AA combo, the soundstage was a tad different, imaging became more solid(a positive term, here), bass tighter and more extended with more weight(but not booming), less laid back, as a whole rather transparent but not that "stunningly airy". Playing pipe organ, AA combo could deliver, what we call, real bass authority!
We did tried another cart, Dynavector Te Kaitora II. A very airy cart and extended at the top but could be a bit thin-sounding, rather "light-weighted" presentations, without much bass authority, extremely relaxed mid-range,...overall sonic results were not as satisifactory as the above, though.
We found the same cart could sound differently with the pivoted and air-bearing linear arms we used. Some of us thought AA combo was closer to recordings without less character of its own. However, some of us preferred Scheu combo which could just sound better to their tastes.
Dan |
