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, 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. |
Agree and disagree. WW2 surplus gave us hobby audio. The technology (say reel to reel tapes, radar, transistors, lasers, flight simulators) was developed by governments and major corporations. Audiophiles merely adapted the technology to our own uses. |
03-17-10: Syntax
No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. Wilson Audio would beg to differ. Add to that Soundlab, Magneplanar, Krell, Pass Labs, Magico, Gryphon, etc. etc. |
My tonearm fantasy
How about the Reality.... No audio product has ever succeeded because it was better, only because it was cheaper, smaller, or easier to use. |
My tonearm fantasy:
Use a holograph image of a phonograph record and play with software.
My prediction; much sooner that most think, because it will not come through our puny hobby, but through the efforts of archivists funded jointly by government and industry. (Thanks to my daughter, recently in graduate school in said field) |
Thank you for the information Dertonarm. I use the infamous Tact equipment, as well as tubes, computers, etc. Software allows for quick changes in various parameters. My fantasy is to be able to audition specific types and brands of say capacitors, tubes and/or other components in simulated circuits prior to, or in lieu of, purchase. Like going to Mars, this may take a while, but the Ipod proves that radical changes in audio can happen overnight when a vision (everybody wants a portable juke box) meets a technology. |
The second order thing about tubes in general is only with SETs- when operating push-pull even-ordered harmonics are cancelled. The nice thing is that you don't get the 5th, 7th and 9th which are unpleasant and used by the ear as loudness cues. |
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. |
"If you want the 2nd order distortions of the better triodes"
Shades of Bob Carver! Please, please, start a thread. We have much better tools and understanding now than twenty years ago. |
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. |
Darkmoebius, he's right. Tubes make lower-ordered distortions, much more preferable to the human ear than the higher, odd-ordered distortions of solid state.
Tube distortions can be dramatically reduced by careful design. There's more about that over on the amps/preamps forum :) |
03-16-10: Samujohn
Agreed. I also venture that tubes are prized by many because they like their gentle, well known, distortions. Just wait until Atmasphere gets a load of that line! |
Agreed. I also venture that tubes are prized by many because they like their gentle, well known, distortions. I often wish I had some tube amp compression in my tiny car, so I could enjoy classical music while commuting. |
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. |
"There are only audio components which do degrade the recorded sound during reproduction.
All do - the better less, the very best very little."
Well put. I thought the same for a half century until I came to realize that certain additives and equalizations (tubes and digital processing, to cite examples) had the capability of enhancing playback intelligibility.
This topic, however, deserves its own thread. |
One thing about the tape experience is how locked-in the soundstage is, and the complete lack of strain experienced with the most complex musical passages. This is something I have only seen a few times with LP systems. If you have not experienced what I am talking about, its hard to understand only in the context of vinyl playback. Those who have tape systems know what I mean.
IMO this is an area that all LP systems must strive to perfect. |
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. |
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. |
Dertonarm,
i tried my best to not make my post personal in any way....as all your posts have been made with respect and class. i don't mean to cause you to defend or explain yourself.
i just felt that when you posted that comment that it needed to be considered......as at least to me it's just a fundamnetal conflict to stray too far from the enjoyment of music when speaking about gear....however objective we attempt to be about cause and effect.
science serves art but does not define it.
i'm no techie, scientist, or engineer. maybe if i had more grounding in technical perspective i'd feel different.
this is supposed to fun.
best regards, |
|
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. |
Hi Dertonarm,
Two C-37's and all of those tapes!! OMG :-) My spouse and I just received 13 Tape Project albums last Friday...we had listened to all of them by late Sunday! We enjoyed sonic bliss weekend - lol.
I'm delighted you've experienced the physical presence and dynamic with analogue cartridge/tonearm that you previously achieved with analogue tape! I'm wondering...do you think, generally, that vinyl possesses the low frequency information that would probably be present in a great tape, i.e. an EQ'd tape used for vinyl mastering that deliberately has the low frequency energy absent? I'm thinking Direct-to-Disc recordings probably have all the musical signal present...
Thanks for your thoughts!
Vbr,
Sam |
If we read Dertonarm's full quote or at least the line before that then it's really not disturbing at all. He wrote:
"My sonic descriptions 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."
I very much appreciate him for not getting into prose of sonic pornography of typical magazine writings. The cause and effect in the design and execution of an audio product are rarely discussed and often veered off into the writer's neurosis. Overall I've been really enjoying this thread from users of all genres of tonearm with their valuable experiences and "sonic results."
____________
|
Otherwise you will find very few sonic statements in any of my posts a profound thought for sure....which caused me pause. after i read the above comment i sat for awhile and pondered exactly why it bothered me so much. i have yet to answer that question in my mind. and please assume the only problem here is my own. i do not mean to inhibit idea exchange here or turn the topic into some philosphical exchange. i'm simply relating my perspective. |
Mepearson, Grounding is a black art, to say the least, but I suggest that a separate wire from tonearm body to the ground plane in your preamp might very well eliminate at least some of the residual hum you talk about. The ground achieved via the cables only accounts for the signal, not necessarily for the tonearm body. For example, my own RS-!A tonearm is unuseable without such a separate ground wire (hum is dominant), whereas I have never had to ground the Triplanar in this manner, and it is totally hum-free. |
I have finally assembled all of the pieces for my conversion from the ET-2 to the Fidelity Research FR64s. The FR64s I bought was in beautiful condition with the original box and all parts and templates. I had a new armboard made for my TNT and had the hole cut for the FR64s at 231.5mm as recommended by Dertonarm instead of the 230mm recommended by the factory. I bought the AQ LeoPard tonearm cable that Dertonarm recommended as well. I originally thought it would not fit in the FR64s but I was just being too timid as it was a tight fit, but fit it did. I did listen for several days with the stock cable and I thought it was pretty good until I installed the LeoPard. The LeoPard simply passes more information through it. I am still tweaking the arm so I am not ready to talk about its sonic virtues in comparison with the ET-2 yet. I just want everyone to know that it is installed and I am getting close. I can tell you that my thoughts on how good the ET-2 sounds have not changed-it is a damn nice sounding tonearm. There is one aspect of the ET-2 that I don't miss and that is the fact that it does not have a true ground. No matter what cables you use and how you fiddle with them, you can never completely eliminate some amount of hum (at least I can't). The ET-2 manual tells you to install a ground wire to one of the ground lugs on the tonearm RCA connector and then run it to the ground connector on your preamp. I don't see that as being any different than the ground you get from the cable itself when it is connected to the tonearm and preamp. Now with the FR64s, I have no hum which is a great thing.
I think there is great potential here, and I will have more to say when I am confident that I have everything dialed in. I am still messing with VTA and I am thinking of changing my loading from 1K to a lower value. |
Too bad the thread returns to generalizations & celebration of received wisdom. Mechanics is a system of complex variables. While the idea of an absolutely rigid bearing is comforting, in actual use the performance of a long lever arm is the sum of many forces including its own rigidity & resonant behavior independent of the bearing. In this regard a short arm surpasses a long one. As regards the low effective vertical mass and long travel of a short linear arm, anyone who has set up a suspension for motocross knows that a properly set up long-travel suspension is consistent with stability in tracking bumps. While yaw in some air bearing designs may cause errors in tangency, solutions to the problem are not inconceivable. For example in Ladegaard/Trans-Fi design, the mating surface of the slider is a wing of large 14 sq. in. surface area, whose long parallelism with air manifold enforces minimal yaw--together with minimal turbulence attendant with low air pressure.
This is not to suggest that this arm is the last word in design. Doubtless each type has strengths and weaknesses of theory and operation. Perhaps it is more interesting to consider the strengths and weaknesses of specific implementations than of abstractions. For example, a P2 may be nice, but I believe there are around six mating solder/mechanical joints in signal path through arm wand. Sacrebleu! |
03-15-10: Dertonarm
Hi Darkmoebius...
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. Aaaaah, gotcha, now I understand where you were coming from. |
Dertonarm wrote, "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."
Bravo! I will join you if I can afford this potential design, surely will be expensive! Thanks for sticking to mechanic discussion. No, you did not spoil the party. In fact, you have lively up the party. The great filmmaker John Cassavetes once wrote to a writer friend, Energy bursts out of your writing. I've been thinking about you. The unknown adventurer. Blasting forth through concrete. Blast them. Then love them. Then blast them again... You see, the blasting and loving is the same thing. Your passion for audio and science is applauded.
The Thales arm and the new sibling Simplicity arm look to have this potential but I do have concern about its extra bearings for the guiding motions to achieve geometric accuracy and hopefully not in the classic case of when the cure is worse than the disease. Regardless, I applaud innovative thinking.
Personally I have given up on the perfect tonearm. I like both genres, as long as people don't tell me their only reason for not liking pivot arm is because a linear tracker tracks more like the cutter head. Maybe I should just go digital. :-)
Just kidding!
This has been an exhilarating thread!
________________
|
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. |
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. |
>>Tzed: Welcome to the monkey house. Perhaps we can team up and ask Phil for tips on setting up our Southers.<<
Happy to take questions. -Phil |
D-Mo,
Thanks, I've actually posted to 2/3 threads! I think Albert has his Studer A810 back in rotation and hope he gets it revved-up for my next visit!
Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming...just playin' :-)
Vbr,
Sam |
03-14-10: C1ferrari
Somewhat off topic, but I'm rather curious...have you listened to analogue reel-to-reel masters (or close to them)? The sound is/has the potential to be exquisite and the experience - revelatory! There are a few threads here in Audiogon's Analog forum dedicated to Reel To Reel playback" 1. Why Not Bring Back Analog, Reel to Reel Tape 2. Tape Project Tapes And, Albert Porter who has participated in this thread has a discussion of his Ampex 351 ProjectDo a search of the Analog forum for "reel to reel", there are a lot threads. |
Hi Dertonarm,
Thank you for mentioning Mr. Carr's contributions to AudiogoN...I'll review them. I'm fascinated by the discussion of free body diagrams and force vectors that are germane to this topic :-)
Somewhat off topic, but I'm rather curious...have you listened to analogue reel-to-reel masters (or close to them)? The sound is/has the potential to be exquisite and the experience - revelatory!
Vbr,
Sam |
03-14-10: Dertonarm
But by now I finally realize that I am only spoiling the party here. Not at all, I think most of us(even linear-arm owners) see your contribution as refreshing, insightful, and highly educational. Nor do I think anyone disagrees with your mechanical and physical description of the forces at work within the two discussed tonearm designs. I think some disagreement may stem from your patent rejection of the subjective listening experiences of others while offering up your own as law. Compare these responses of yours: 03-10-10: Dertonarm
Individual - yet subjective empirical... - audiophile impressions versus mechanical laws.....
03-11-10: Dertonarm
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 ? With this statement: 03-14-10: Dertonarm
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. As of yet, we've had no convincing(non-subjective) proof that properly set up, modern, linear-tracking tonearms actually: a) cause premature or excessive cartridge wear/damage, b) cause increased distortion due to excessive lateral force to the cantilever/motor assembly. I have no doubt you PERCEIVE a pivot's greater "speed, inner details, maximum dynamics and tight, hard punch...air, freshness and color, speed and minute detail in the lower registers" versus linear tonearms "big, fat but soft and not really low bass" in your(or all) systems, but as you so succinctly said above long term subjective observations are always subjective.
Logic - isn't it ? Now, if you have frequency response and waterfall decay charts or the response by the two(or more) different tonearm setups in your room with the same cartridge, that's an entirely different ball of wax, altogether. Regardless, I hope you will continue to participate in this thread, as your responses are the type that help elevate such discussions above the subjective "tit for tat" so often found on forums. I have sent an email to Jonathan Carr(of Lyra design fame) inviting him to offer his insight into cartridge design criterion and tolerances. Perhaps his insight can help illuminate other aspects of this discussion we've yet to delve into and clear up some others. I would love to hear from some other cart designers, too. |
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. |
C1ferrari, Darkmoebius et al, JCarr is very active on Audiogon too...... see threads about Lyra and Fidelity Research Cartridges. |
Dertonearm, good point on the short lever and VTA/VTF changes when tracked over a warped record. Mine does dance up and down and side to side when I play with my short levered linear arm. It is a sight to admire and be amazed that inspite of more than normal visible movement of the stylus. the sound rarely changes its tone and pace. The reason is yes, it does have excessive amplitude as compared to longer linear arms or pivot arms, but the amplitude frequency is also higher and relatively fast, so as to be the effect less noticeable (hear). At least that is what i have found.
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.
Look, we all agree that there are pro and cons in both arm designs, but with all being equal, not extreme condition/s of using warped record, linear arm still has overall advantage of 'complete' tracking fidelity than the pivot arms and hence superior performance advantage and I think this is what this thread is about. You just have to listen both (good examples well set up with same cart, phono cable, phono) back to back to realize.
I think it is time to get handle on this tracking error (info reading loss) we all are talking about with pivot arms. Has anybody done 3D geometric study to quantify the tracking error with pivot arms. I mean which part of the info are we loosing? left channel error, right channel error, what is the content we are missing? |
D-Mo,
I think the inestimable Jonathan Carr posted on Audio Asylum in the past.
Vbr,
Sam |
Thanks Samujohn, should be a fun ride.
I had a B&O 4004 but it was plug 'n' play so obviously a very different beast to the Souther.
I love the idea that there is a human knowledge base available for question answering and advice.
My first hurdle will be mounting the arm to the table.... |
Tzed: Welcome to the monkey house. Perhaps we can team up and ask Phil for tips on setting up our Southers. |
We need Jonathan Carr to chime on in this discussion. He designs cartridges for Lyra and used to post on some audio forms a few years ago. But, i can't remember which website.
I be he'd have a lot of insight to share on cartridge design, tolerances, forces, and tonearm factors.
Does anyone remember which audio website he posts on? I think his moniker used to be "J Carr" or something to that effect. For some reasons, I think he now only drops in on one of the DIY Audio boards. |
Dertonearm, if I understand you consider a short arm to be the Achille's heel. I can only offer anecdotally that the shorter I adjust my tonearm the better it sounds. I can think of no explanation other than that improved resonance control of shorter arm is of greater importance than maintaining absolute VTA. Designers of top pivot arms obviously give much thought to controlling vibration with particularly elegant arm tube compositions. But it is remarkable how many long pivot arms appear to be casually designed in this respect.(Based on appearance I would include Thales in this second group. I would also include any arm with a detachable headshell.) But all things being equal regarding arm tube composition, a short arm should win at least with respect to vibration control.
Taken from another angle, is it conceivable that micro-variations in VTA(which long pivot arms also suffer albeit to a lesser extent), are any more detrimental than out-of-tangency tracking errors with pivot arms?
Finally, what pivot arm approaches a linear arm in clean portrayal of inner grooves? |
My understanding is that some stylus shapes are more VTA tolerant than others. This information should be available from the manufacturers, so one can see what range of VTA tolerance is needed by each arm. In any case, the records vary so much in thickness and in cutting angle that precision in that area is almost useless, unless one has a quick VTA adjustment and a notation on every record jacket. I really miss that feature which I had with my old MMT arm. Unhappily, despite that feature, it never really sounded all that good.
|
Fascinating thread for me, as I just acquired a Souther SLA-3 the other day.
There has been some hot-tempered debate, some baseless opinion and some pseudo-science; all the elements needed for a real honest-to-goodness internet forum!
There has also been all the elements of a reasoned discussion for which I thank those of you involved on that end.
I look forward to the challenge of getting the best sound I can out my new linear tracker, I'll be experimenting with cartridges of differing compliance as well as differing counter-balance weight placement, etc.
I am thankful there is a marketplace like Audiogon where I will be able to purchase used carts at a big discount over new.
I am thankful Audiogon has this forum where perhaps with your help I will be able to maximize the pleasure I get out of my new arm.
And I'm thankful that if I despair of reaching cloud 10 and can't live on cloud 9, that one of you will purchase my Souther and carry on! |
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. |
"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"
Thank you, this is very clear. Now assuming a record that looks nominally flat and is clamped or vacuum attached, are there some numbers that can be plugged in to this problem so information concerning choice of cartridges for specific designs can got from manufacturers?
In simply looking at my Souther track, it appears to snake along so that it's tracking error is constantly changing. The shorter the arm the worse this is. Do air bearing arms do any better? |
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. |
