My Rockport TT replaced a Goldmund Reference with a T3F tonearm in which I had used a Clearaudio cartridge. Given that the T3F had destroyed, at least one Clearaudio due to lateral deflection, I was concerned that the Rockport arm might have the same problem. Andy explained that the real culprit in most instances of damage to the cartridge suspension is record warps. For this reason, the Rockport uses a vaccuum hold down. At this point, Andy was the distributor for the Vandenhul Grasshopper cartridges which had notorious suspension problems. Andy said that used in his TT, the life of the Grasshopper would be greatly extended (3X). Anecdotally, I bought a Grasshopper at the same time that I purchased the TT and never had a single problem with it. IMHO, a properly designed and executed tangential arm offers some real advantages over a pivoted arm. The problem is that most tangential arms have historically not been well designed or executed.
Hope that this helps. |
Great points for this topic Fred. |
|
Individual - yet subjective empirical... - audiophile impressions versus mechanical laws..... |
The discussions has been very interesting and very informative. As just a hobbiest, I enjoy reading points are mixture of M.E. peer review and personal experiences. Not all postings are equal, nor should be followed, but it does seems that decent tonearm discussions have that more of right blend of theory, practice, execution and sound reproduction that can help readers, like me, make informed decisions on products to look into for demonstration. Thanks to thread contributors thus far and keep it going. |
audiophile impressions versus mechanical laws long term observations on cartridge durability on a linear tracker is not 'placebo' or 'audiophile impressions'. Fred did not imagine that his vdH Cartridge had no problems. i did not imagine that my vdH Colibri worked great for 5 years on my linear tracker. heroic execution of design seems to trump expected limitations of concept in some cases. bumble bees should not be able to fly, but they do. |
Fred is one of the most reliable and sensible sources I can think of. I've known him for more than 20 years, probably closer to 30 years.
Fred and I have spent many evenings listening together any many more on the phone discussing preferences.
His position at Dagogo. is new compared to our friendship, I assure you his report is genuine if he put it in this forum.
His experience is one I can believe in, no axe to grind and zero ego, not to mention he has no horse in this race. |
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. |
Well said, Dertonarm. Well said.
A tonearm is a mechanical device, let's stick to talking about its mechanical operation and design issues, regardless of one's sonic impression either pro or con. Unless someone can articulate well enough to relate the sound to the tonearm's physical attribute, it's still mostly a bunch of impressionistic ramblings. I am sure many people just can't wait to jump on talking about how wide the "soundstage" or "PRaT" or other pornographic details. Spare me.
______________
|
Have we then decided that the charge against liner arms ".......(they) put excessive side force on the stylus, in a way that would lead to poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge" is unsupported, and are now simply discussing the theory of the best tonearm design? |
Samujohn, in a word, no. Fred's point about using vacuum is well-taken; record warp will contribute to the issues of air-bearing linear trackers. This quote The problem is that most tangential arms have historically not been well designed or executed. is the most telling. Mikelavigne, about 20-25 years ago someone figured out that the Reynolds number for a bumble bee's wing was not being calculated correctly. Once the right Reynold's number got into the math, it turned out that bumble bees fly just fine. That example does persist though, just like most people still think that Marconi was the inventor of the radio. |
So, my Souther mounted on a vacuum turntable does not cause excessive wear because I do not play warped records; or it does cause excessive wear, only I don't seem to be able to notice because.....................?
Or, is it more accurate to say that poorly designed liner arms, and arms out of adjustment, cause excessive wear, and liner arms are more likely to stress the cartridge tracking warped records than pivoted arms? |
Ok, I phoned techs at both Grado and Soundsmith (since they also do retipping) if they have found that linear tracking arms cause excessive wear and/or damage to cartridges.
Both techs were fairly clear in saying "no", given that the arms are properly set up(level, etc). The only caveat offered is that there could possibly be more issues with highly compliant carts as compared to medium compliant ones.
If anyone is in the same time zone as the European and Japanese cart manufacturers(ZYX, Dynavector, Shelter, Koetsu, Van de Hul, Benz Micro, etc) give them a call see what they have to say.
I just want to know if premature or excessive wear/damage due to modern linear arms is common since I own both linear and pivoted arms. |
If I have read all of the responses correctly, the "argument" is that the physics associated with a high mass air bearing tone arm causes more stress on the cartridge stylus/suspension than does a properly set up pivoted arm. This problem is excaberated by warped records. The counter-argument is that people who have long term experience with a cartridge used in an air bearing arm that has shown no visible symptoms of damage may not believe that the theoretical problem exists. As I said once before, I used a Van den Hul MC 10 for around 5 years in my ET-2 and I saw no problems with it. Recently, I bought a new Denon 103R and it did develop a problem in my ET-2. The cantilever is now canted off-center. What I don't know is if the cartridge suspension was defective and this would have happened regardless or if the ET-2 caused this. I know that Bruce Thigpen advises using a high-compliance cartridge in the ET-2 which I thought ran counter to an earlier argument. The 103R is a low compliance cartridge. The other argument in favor of pivoted arms versus linear tracking arms is that pivoted arms have deeper/punchier bass.
I just received my new Stereophile rag last night which contains a review of the latest Walker table and arm written by JV with an interview of the Walker principles. JV used my same arguments that I started this thread with to explain why linear tracking arms are better than pivoted arms. It was also interesting that JV poised the question to Loyd Walker about pivoted arms having better bass than linear tracking arms and Loyd's answer was something to the effect that pivoted arms appear to have better bass because their bearings are chattering!
I think Dertonarm's argument is that you can't defy the laws of physics and because you don't see any apparent damage to your cartridge doesn't mean that it is not being stressed and therefore shouldn't be a concern. The flip side to this argument is that well, if I can't see it, it obviously doesn't exist.
Personally, I love the sound of the ET-2 and I wasn't convinced it could get much better in the arm world. For me, the ET-2 set up properly exhibits a master tape type sound which frankly I love. However, unless you have been exposed to something better than what you have, it is easy to delude yourself and think nothing can be better.
As I said before, Dertonarm has convinced me that there may be more in the grooves than I am hearing with the linear tracking arm and I am intrigued enough to give pivoted arms another shot. If it truly sounds better than my ET-2, I will be a happy man regardless of the additional benefits of less stress on my cartridge stylus/suspension. I hope to be up and running with my FR64s this weekend if my armboard is finished in time. Everything else is ready and waiting.
If someone here is an ME and can show through physics that Dertonarm is incorrect in stating that there is more force applied on a cartridge when installed on an air bearing linear tracking arms due to its high horizontal mass dragging the cartridge across the record, please speak up. Otherwise, those who don't believe it are basing their argument on how long they have owned their cartridge and the fact that they don't see/hear anything wrong with it after long-term use rather than denying that the laws of physics apply as Dentonarm has explained.
And finally, I can tell you that if the FR64s doesn't sound better than my ET-2, I won't hesitate to reinstall it to gain back the quality I had before I tore it down in anticpation of the FR64s. I will take my chances and hope it doesn't screw up my new Benz Glider SL if I lose the magic I had when I used the ET-2. Honestly, I am rooting for the new set up because we always want to improve our systems after we spend large sums of money-not take a step backwards. |
I freely admit that I know next to nothing about either engineering or physics, however knowing nothing about a subject has never prevented a lawyer, like my humble self, from asking questions, or seeking precision in expression via words.
My inclination is to evidence not theory. I applaud Darkmoebius approach. Let those with evidence come forward. Theory is mere speculation. |
03-11-10: Mepearson
The counter-argument is that people who have long term experience with a cartridge used in an air bearing arm that has shown no visible symptoms of damage may not believe that the theoretical problem exists. I don't think that accurately summarizes the counter-argument. I think most(or all) of us agree/accept Dertonarm's excellent description of why linear arms must exert greater lateral force on a cartridge's cantilever and motor assembly. The question for us is: Does this greater force result in premature wear or excessive damage to most cartridges? Dertonarm has offered his personal, subjective, experiences as proof that they do. Others, you included, have offered their own personal, subjective, experiences that it doesn't. At this point, I'd only like to know from cartridge manufacturers or retippers what their observations are since they talk to hundreds of owners and see a lot of worn/damaged carts. I would guess that in a significant number of cases, they speak to or correspond with cart owners as to what type of arm they are using. Perhaps, over the years, they have had a number of carts returned for service with deflected cantilevers, improperly worn stylus, or damaged motor assemblies and a significant number of those owners used linear arms. Maybe they have not, and that would be telling in it's own right. I can assure you that if the Grado tech said they had noticed a large number of repairs for linear owners over the years, I would not use my "The Statement" on my Cartridge Man Conductor arm. I love that cart and it was an expensive purchase, for me. Even still, if I hear from a number of other manufacturers that linears cause more damage, I will stop using the Conductor. |
Correction: Instead of saying At this point, I'd only like to know from cartridge manufacturers or retippers what their observations are I meant to say "At this point, the deciding factor for me is the observations of cartridge manufacturers or retippers" with regard to real world wear and tear on carts. |
After the collapse of the Soviet Union a Western reporter asked Soviet scientist why Russia had so many theoretical physicists and so few experimental ones.
He replied- pencils are cheap! |
Darkmo-I did say that I had a new 103R that had a stylus off-center after using it for a short time in the ET-2. What I don't know is what caused it. |
Aaah, duly noted. Sorry about the mistake, Mepearson.
I'm really ambivalent on the subject as far as sonic performance, whichever works best. My pivot arm actually costs more than my linear, so it's not a matter of defending a precious investment. |
As far as evidence against theory, evidence achieved through carefully controlled experiments is always preferred. In reality, I don't know of an easy way to do this. Would you run two "identical" cartridges for a predetermined number of hours with one being installed in a linear tracking arm and the other in a pivoted arm and after said hours are up, would you then examine/meaure each cartridge for changes to the suspension and cantilever alignment? I can see lots of variables creeping in here that could affect the outcome. The reality is I don't know how practical this experiment would be.
As far as cartridge manufacturers giving us any meaningful info on this debate, I am old enough to be cynical enough to think that we couldn't depend on it. Aside from the issues that manufacturers may have no idea what type of tonearm was tracking their cartridge before it was sent back for a rebuild, politics and money are pervasive in everything. Even if it was true, I don't know that cartridge manufacturers would tell you that using a linear tracking arm will shorten the life of your cartridge. Not only do they have to worry about lost sales to potential linear tracking arm customers, they would also most likely incur the wrath of linear tracking tonearm manufacturers. |
Yes, carefully controlled experiments are the scientific way. If available, they are the best evidence, however evidence has a hierarchy, at least in the legal world.
The highest standard is "beyond reasonable doubt". Granted, that is not the scientific way. However, a lower standard is, "by the preponderance of the evidence presented". We can all draw our own conclusions, but so far I see that even by this very modest standard, the burden of proof has not been met in the matter of "poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge". I vote for acquittal. |
Dear Dertonarm: Like you I agree ( I posted several times. ) that the cero tracking error advantage on linear trackers in this imperfect analog world could means almost nothing against the less than 2° error in pivot tonearms design.
Till today I always support a pivot tonearm over a linear tracker at least for the better bass quality performance that btw Atmasphere, you and me point out through the thread.
Now, no one and I'm reffering to M. Lavigne, F. Crowder, Atmasphere or A. Porter deny if there exist more cartridge stylus/cantilever/suspension stress through a linear tracker than a pivot design, otherwise they give cartridge names, how many years and which linear tracking tonearms where they don't detect any cartridge quality performance problem cause by that " stress " we are talking about.
The argument that you posted where you say that over the long run/time we can't aware of that cartridge quality performance degradation due that is at minimum day after day and we can't detect it is no clear argument at all because you have to take in count too the normal cartridge deterioration because of time even in a pivot tonearm.
How I can see all this controversy, some one posted here: ++++ " Theory is mere speculation. " +++++
yes till you prove it and you know this.
The controversy could comes because the theory and common sense tell me that that " stress " exist what that theory can't explain ( because your model is only a part of the whole model neccesary to prove it. ) is how exactly shows it self through the cartridge life: after three months ( in hours. ), after one year, after 3 years, how change the cartridge frequency response due not only because the normal over time cartridge degradation but in specific for that additional " stress ", how change the cartridge crosstalk between channels, how the suspension/cantilever behavior/stylus shape changes due only for that additional " stress ", which is the impact with different cantilever size, with different stylus shape, with different cartridge compliance values, with different LP recording velocities, with different room temperature, etc, etc
IMHO I think you don't have answers ( and I don't asking for. ) and I don't know any one that could have the precise theoretical answers and even if they have ( in theory ) this is only half the " true " because you have to prove it ( the other half ) through a controled experiment/tests in real time. Very complex for say the least!
In the other side those gentleman has an answer ( Dertonarm, it is not only one person but more than that. Are they all wrong? could happen that they speak between each other before they posted?: no Sir I don't even imagine that! ) that they can prove it through its subjective/empirical experienced/knowledge each one has.
So, the " stress " exist: how affect the cartridge quality
performance over time?, who knows!!!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
03-11-10: Mepearson
As far as cartridge manufacturers giving us any meaningful info on this debate, I am old enough to be cynical enough to think that we couldn't depend on it. Aside from the issues that manufacturers may have no idea what type of tonearm was tracking their cartridge before it was sent back for a rebuild, politics and money are pervasive in everything. Even if it was true, I don't know that cartridge manufacturers would tell you that using a linear tracking arm will shorten the life of your cartridge. Not only do they have to worry about lost sales to potential linear tracking arm customers, they would also most likely incur the wrath of linear tracking tonearm manufacturers. My experience with most manufacturers of a wide range of audio components has found most of them to be fairly straightforward, if not strongly opinionated, about what does and does not work best with their components. In the case of Grado, I was up front that I already own their "The Statement" cart(w/ low hours) and both a quality linear and pivoted arm, my only concern was with doing premature or unnecessary damage to it. The was clear there was no sale to be made, regardless of his view. I don't know about others, but whenever I talk to a manufacturer/dealer/repair person, I always make a point of telling them exactly what their product will be connected to. It would be foolish not to, just in case their is some relationship between it and a current, or future, problem. So far, I found almost all to give warning where a potential issue could arise, some have even recommended against buying their product because of incompatibility or problems. I have certainly been told when a cart IS NOT a good match for a tonearm and to look elsewhere. But, to minimize your valid concern in the future, I suggest others who may contact manufacturers/retippers on their continent do so with those whose products they already own and make clear that it isn't a potential sale inquiry, but rather one of maintenance/longevity. |
|
I suppose a linear tonearm with a very short wand will have lower effective vertical mass than any pivot arm. Such a linear arm may place less stress on cartridge suspension relative to a pivot arm. The horizontal mass of a linear arm will always be greater than a pivot arm. However the friction/stiction of an air bearing is less than a pivot. This advantage might at least partial off-set the disadvantage of relatively greater horizontal mass.
Can anyone comment on these linked variables of vertical mass, horizontal mass, and friction as they collectively bear on cartridge wear, or for that matter, on sonic performance? Is there a threshold of low horizontal mass on an air bearing arm, beneath which stylus wear becomes an irrelevancy? For example, Trans-Fi has horizontal mass on order of 85gm.
So many variables and so little time. |
Mepearson :I already said that the scientific way (controlled experiment) was best in this matter. Only In its absence I suggested that each of us be the judge according to the evidence presented. I do not see how your hatred of the jury trial process (heck, we all hate it) has any relevance to the subject at hand.
All I have by way of evidence is my personal experience with one tonearm. Since my experience is at variance with the theory advanced, namely that my cartridge life will be shortened and my sound distorted ("poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge"), I simply want some proof. I am open to your suggestions of how to solve this problem.
|
Let us not forget that pivot arm also has friction (owing to slow tracking speed, this is static and not dynamic coefficient of friction) at the bearing and due to this friction the arm would also have "+/- X force" (x force normal to the pivot arm longitudinal axis). This is in addition to the y component working along axis of the arm. Any ME or SE can draw a simple free body diagram to balance primary force vectors.
Your intuition would tell you that this force would be lower than that in the linear arms, but it depends. It depends on the effective static mass at the friction interface- longer and heavier the arm, greater the friction force. Thus longer and heavier arms with mechanical pivot/bearing may have higher friction force than say shorter wand on linear arm with mechanical 'sliding friction' bearing.( an air bearing would even be further lower)
Of course, we are talking about a small force values here- tenth of grams. milli grams or even micro grams of friction force depending upon the arm mass etc.
It would be good to know how and what design load s cartridges (the stylus, suspension and suspension to cartridge body interface) and are designed at. Static and dynamic loads. Naturally owing to the function of cartridge, the stylus and the rest of the 'structure' would be designed with cantilever beam loading idealization and thus would have certain design capability (static and cyclic based fatigue) in both x and y directions (and of course the z direction) to be be able to withstand x and y load induced during tracking wavy grooves.
So without looking at hard numbers on free body with two samples of linear and pivot arms it is hard to say which one has more x (excessive damaging forces). I tend to think air bearing linear arm would be approaching (Or even lower than) light weight pivot arm.
Rather than generalization, I would like to see free body force values for a set up compared with cartridge design values (both static and fatigue(-number of cycles- I bet you cart manufacturers should have this)
Until then the real life experiences are good indication to base the 'judgement' on. And we do have experiences from both camp. |
Nilthepill, interesting points. In the horizontal a linear air bearing design has the advantage of zero static or dynamic friction. Moreover, assuming good eccentricity of LP, within certain limits the higher lateral mass of a linear arm could actually be an advantage, insofar as an inertial mass with constant momentum toward spindle would tend to reduce centripital force required to advance stylus. |
|
I love this, Nilthepill! In class, we have been studying free body diagrams...now, if only I could introduce this as a real-life application to the mp3 generation :-)
Vbr,
Sam |
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. |
"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? |
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. |
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! |
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.
|
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? |
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. |
Tzed: Welcome to the monkey house. Perhaps we can team up and ask Phil for tips on setting up our Southers. |
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.... |
D-Mo,
I think the inestimable Jonathan Carr posted on Audio Asylum in the past.
Vbr,
Sam |
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? |
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. |
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. |
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: 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. |
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 |
>>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 |
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. |
