By the way, I just read through more posts by Dertonarm and really appreciate your insight from the point of view of both design and operation. It's refreshing to read pieces that are not constantly going back to the same old pornographic sonic analysis like audio magazines. Hats off to you.
____________ |
Deronarm: "Cutting lathe/cutting head can not be compared to a linear tonearm at all. A cutting head is not tracking a groove. It is engraving it into a virgin vinyl. That's why it's active. It doesn't care for the groove margin - it literally creates it."
That's exactly the point!!
______________
|
Cutting lathe/cutting head can not be compared to a linear tonearm at all.
A cutting head is not tracking a groove.
It is engraving it into a virgin vinyl. Thats why its active. It doesn't care for the groove margin - it literally creates it.
There are 12" tonearms out there which do feature a rigidity in both their armpipe and bearing which is the equal to the very best 9 and 10" tonearms. |
________________________________
I haven't gone through and read all the posts so I might have missed some similar thoughts and sounding repetitive. In theory a linear tracker simulate the tangency of the record cutter but one must remember a cutter is an ACTIVE device, it forces a straight line across the record in order to cut a record but a linear tracking arm is a PASSIVE device that is tracking in the mercy of the record groove with its angles and turns! In real world tracking, most center holes on records are not absolutely centered, very often few millimeters off! Bam, there goes tangency out the window.
As one commenter points out tangency is based on the cantilever - shape of the stylus tip too if you want to be anal about it - in relation to the groove NOT the arm. Bear in mind the cantilever is attached to rubber, hence a compliant system! So imagine the cantilever is constantly navigating with side force of the off center record thrusting it laterally banging on left and right and you tell me if that's perfect tangency or not! Of course the perfect table for a linear tracking arm to work on would be something like the Nakamichi Dragon or TX1000 that self corrects off center record hole but how many people have a table like that?
I think the reason people prefer the sound of linear tracker over pivot arm is that tracking error is still lower than many pivot arms, especially the shorter one that's not optimized in overhang and anti-skating adjustment. I don't have problem with people preferring linear tracker over pivot but just don't be so militant about it and keep insist on telling me linear trackers have perfect tangency! It does not! It's still a compromise and so is life. To me all the fiddling is distracting me from playing record but your mileage may vary of course.
I mean, just think about it, a stylus is attached to a cantilever and then attached to rubber and then attach to an arm and then attach to a counterweight all the way at the end and you expect the geometry to be perfectly tangent through out playing one side of a record for 20 minutes straight? We know how dramatic the overhang is off by one millimeter can sound with pivot arms so imagine a record with a one millimeter off-centered hole, not uncommon, played with a linear tracker. Perfect tangency? NOT!
Anyway, I used to have problem with servo pseuso-linear tracking arms because the obvious objection to the constant self correcting nature of its design but crabbing across the record with tiny arcs but I have since come to appreciate it more because it's much less stressful on the cantilever and stylus and navigate the groove much easier in REAL WORLD situation. It's really a pivot arm with a uni-directional gliding base, if that helps the mental picture. (uni-direction in typical designs not counting Pioneer's PL-L1000 bi-directional arm) The problem with the sound of many servo design is not the concept but the execution and many don't use good bearings and if look at it as a pivot arm it's no where near the quality of top notch arms like the Graham, Triaplanar, SME V, etc... I have a Yamaha PX-2 and it works wonderfully and it's better than many servo arm in its mechanical quality. Of course not in the league of top notch pivot arms but the lessening of tracking error (not perfect tangency) does pay dividend. So I hope in the future, someone can design a "servo tonearm mounting base" that allows one to mount any pivot arm that can servo control the base's lateral movement to lessen tracking distortion (lessen not eliminate) Wouldn't that be something cool? Hell, if I mount a 12" arm on such device the tracking error would be so low to not even worry about such a thing!
I forgot the mention another solution such as the Thales arm that is a combination of pivot and linear tracker by self adjust to tangency in a PASSIVE system. Very clever indeed. But the only problem I can think of is that by adding another pivot right above the cartridge might affect the structural integral of the arm and having extra linkage might hinder its fluid movement. Again, nothing is perfect but I can at least appreciate the innovation. Bravo!
Speaking of 12", I honestly thing a 12" arm makes sense unless you are in the rigidity is everything crowd. There's no perfect arm and I can accept that just like life and a well desing 12" seems to be a good compromise.
At the end of the day, I just want to play some tunes and not worry about whether the damn needle is tangent or not. That's it for now.
___________________ |
Frogman, I do rather choose physical and technical facts in audio discussion, as sonic impressions are purely individual and can't be transferred nor put into correct perspective.
Unless you were familiar with me as a person, my taste, opinions, background, preferences in sound and sound reproduction - my personal impressions and statements of the sonic virtues of a given component are just blank phrases to you or anybody else.
However - I too take the ET 2 (and especially the ET 2.5 ) any day heads above the SME V.
The ET2 was always THE best buy among linear tonearms in specific.
But the sonic difference between the two tonearms is not a difference between pivot vs linear. The impression that many audiophile experienced with the SME V ( kind of dull, live-less sound with an over-prominent upper bass ) has to do with its very design and a few construction details which added up to an unhappy marriage.
Anyway - exchange of opinions is - if not fortified by empirical (and thats the virtue of physics and technical aspects..) arguments which at least can be verified and re-verified by others. |
One unique thing I just realized about linear tonearm is that I find myself cleaning the needle a lot compared to (if ever!) my other two set ups with pivot arms.
This may mean that linear arm has perfect snug contact vs pivot arms hence picking up more RIGHT info (and more dirt) indicating better performance?
Anyone else with linear tone arm experienced this? |
Frogman, Your experience with ET2 surpassing SME V mirrors mine with Trans-Fi Pro vs. SME IV. As regards stylus deflection, when a linear air arm is used with a high-compliance cartridge, rather than shoot for perfect level I position the manifold so as to eliminate bias in stylus deflection during play as viewed through a magnifier. It might be that in this position the manifold is actually at a miniscule downward tilt toward the spindle, allowing gravity to work in ones favor and relieve torque on the stylus.
Agree with Samujohn and would extend his point by suggesting that ease of use and repeatability of results is an important consideration. In this regard (some) linear arms are a piece of cake relative to pivot arms. Perhaps any arm over $5K should come with a boxed homunculus to set it up. |
Frogman, I agree that the ET-2 sounds outstanding which is sort of what prompted me to start this thread (and I do think I had mine set up correctly which is no easy task). However, as I said previously, Dertonarm has inspired me to give pivoted arms another chance. I have bought the arm and headshell he recommended and I am looking forward to working with Dertonarm to maximize the potential by careful setup. I have a "record" of what my ET-2 sounded like as I have recorded numerous 15 ips 2 track tapes that sound outstanding (or so I think). I will be able to compare the sound between the two set ups and I look forward to it. I will be quite happy if the FR64s is the winner and won't look back if it is. In the meantime, my ET-2 isn't going anywhere.
And Dertonarm-the post office tried to deliver the FR64s yesterday, but I was at work. I signed the release paper so I should have it tomorrow. The headshell has been sent from Hong Kong. It will be ironic if the piece that takes the longest to get here is the blank arm board from VPI which is in NJ. I was hoping to be up and running by this weekend, but I doubt that will happen due to VPI. |
Well gee, if only three out of 350 get set up that will reveal the difference !!!!!
I get better odds in Las Vegas. |
Dertonarm, discussion of this subject is absolutely not a waste of time. I think that the opinions, experience, and findings of someone who has so much experience with different equipment as you do, is invaluable. I, for one, appreciate it. But, I think you miss my point.
Whenever I see/hear an argument made, accompanied by a great deal of technical data supporting one viewpoint or another, without at least some mention of how a piece of equipment actually sounds compared to the real thing, the red flags go up for me. Not because technical data is not important (it obviously is), but because the ultimate importance of measurements, relative to real life end results has, time and time again, been thrown into question; at least to some degree.
Without meaning to get too "Zen" about it all, the beauty of music, and less importantly it's reproduction, is the incredible complexity of it all. I think we can all agree (or should agree) that there is still a lot about the playback of recordings that we don't understand. Long held ideas/truths are regularly debunked. Thankfully, there is a lot we do understand, but if we don't always return to respect of the music and IT'S complexity, I think all the other arguments are thrown into question.
Returning to the subject at hand, by way of practical example: While I certainly don't have nearly as much experience with tonearms as you do, I think that my experience with the SME vs. the ET2 makes a point. I think most audiophiles would agree that the SME V, while not the last word in pivoting tonearms, is a quality product, and was the standard in many audiophile circles for a long time. The ET2, in spite of it's "technical" inferiority, consistently sounded more like real music to me. I don't like to bring up this point too often, but I am around the sound of acoustic instruments for several hour every day, so I am sensitive to tonal and dynamics-related issues with equipment. The ET2 consistently let my analog set-up sound more like the real thing, than did the SME; both arms were set up, I assure you, to the endth degree. What does this prove? That I "like the sound of the ET2"? No. If you can demonstrate to me that the SME "works better", from a technical standpoint, than the ET2 does (you probably can), then what it says to me is that there are some things going on with the playback process that we don't fully understand. Personally, I can live with that. |
Darkmoebius, sorry, but I doubt that you will find a cartridge designer/manufacturer with as wide experience in real-world practical audio analog life as several A'goners like Raul, Dougdeacon, Dan_Ed, Syntax, Thuchan to name just a few.
If you want to know about the virtues of a new Ferrari (now Mercedes...) racing car you should better ask Michael Schumacher - he most likely can tell you much more than any of the cars designers ( because he actually drives the car - and he is a much better driver than any of the designers/engineers...).
Furthermore they rarely know about the working history of a cartridge they get for repair/exchange. As too many audiophiles do know too little about set-up ( I have seen about 350 cartridge/tonearm set-ups/alignments so far over the past 30 years in other audiophiles systems. Not 3 of them were actually correct in all parameters - so much for real-life experience) , damage by improper set-up is the rule - not the exception.
The answer to the "million dollar question" is so clear and obvious that there in fact is no question. The physical/mechanical situation - at least under working conditions on this planets surface - is a (sorry...) fact and as such out of real question. |
Dertonarm, I wrote: "That, is the million dollar question. Unless this greater lateral force can be proven to cause increased distortion or cartridge wear, it is really a non-issue outside of the theoretical realm" Now, in this particular case, there are two possible outcomes to this "million dollar question": 1) the increased lateral force does not produce increased distortion and/or cartridge wear, 2) the increased lateral force does produce increased distortion and/or cartridge wear If outcome #1 is true, then I think that such force is a non-issue and it all comes down to personal preference as to what sounds best. But, if outcome #2 is true, then I(obviously) think that such force IS AN ISSUE beyond personal preference of sound. I don't think many people want to intentionally subject their cartridges to excessive wear/damage. I hinted that I might contact manufacturers/repairers because they would be the best suited to judge if, and when, a cart is out of spec or damaged - not just from a technical perspective, but also from a statistical one because their sample pool is likely to much larger than that of an individual audiophile. |
Dear Darkmoebius, if indeed
..."In which case, it all boils down to what sounds best in each particular system and owner's mind." ...
then all discussion is kind of waste of time - isn't it ?
This is similar to discussion about religious issues. In the end - when one party runs out of arguments - the final defensive statement will always be "but I believe".
Here is all comes down to "but I like the sound".
Fine.
In my point of view this is the ultimate thorn-wall against progression.
But then progression in itself was already judged as an erratic way of life by some greek philosophers 2400+ years ago.
Which shines a philosophical spotlight on analog high-end audio.
Now - isn't that nice..... |
Unless a linear tonearm murders your cartridge in the very first days, you will hardly notice any effect till you dismount it and realize that your cantilever is off line.
Why ?
Because it is a constant small decrease in quality and sound over time. Our brain and ear won't react to very tiny rather constant changes - there are no benchmarks to verify the changes.
So in the end - how does it sound ?
You'll never know. You may like the sound of a linear tracker.
I've too.
As long as you do not notice its shortcomings. Once you detect them in the sonic signature, the magic is gone forever.
I have owned and used for several years side by side the Triplanar, Graham, ET2 2.5, Goldmund T3F, Air Tangent 2B and Reference to name the more prominent ones and contenders from both "camps".
The mechanical stress showed its results over time - it wasn't the same in all linear trackers ( the ET2 was best when very carefully set-up (= leveled and painstakingly rewired with ultra flexible litz-wire which finally did NOT interfere with the progression...) and running with twice the air pressure as recommended by its manufacturer) .
The originally question of this thread was - as stated by Mepearson - whether the linear tonearms as superior performers by nature.
In my opinion they are not.
THere are plain mechanical and real-life trade-offs in their concept and so far there is no linear tracker on the market which does address all these problems.
The theoretical geometrical advantage can't be denied.
But then it is corrupted by the need of derivation for progression - so far as well in passive as in motorized linear tonearms.
All these conceptional musings do not mean that a linear tracker can't put up an impressive sonic performance.
So you may like its sound for good reason.
BUt on the way up to the very top of Mt Everest the air gets thin and on the last two tracks to the summit the linear tonearms give in - not enough oxygen to fuel their lungs any more.
In direct contest with the best pivots their geometrical advantage becomes very tiny - their bearing and mechanical problems begin to show.
Again - I love the linear principle in tonearms.
But we yet have to see one fulfilling the promise and addressing all issues. |
03-01-10: Frogman
Never have I experienced a problem with cartridge/cantilever wear that I can attribute to the arm. That, is the million dollar question. Unless this greater lateral force can be proven to cause increased distortion or cartridge wear, it is really a non-issue outside of the theoretical realm. In which case, it all boils down to what sounds best in each particular system and owner's mind. I think I might make a few inquiries tomorrow with some reputable cartridge manufacturers/repairers to see if they've noticed excessive or unusual wear due to linear tracking arms. |
I will state up-front that I have been a fan of the ET2 for more years than I can remember. I have used the same sample on four different tables; currently a TNT6. During this same time period I have owned Rega, SME V, Grado, and Syrinx PU3 (still own). I used at least two of each of the aforementioned pivoting tonearms on each of the four tables that the ET2 has sat on. I keep the Syrinx PU3 as a backup, in the event that I have a problem with the air pump for the ET2; or some other issue, such as placement of equipment due to a move etc. There is no question that the use of the ET2 is more complicated than any of the pivoting arms that I have used. But well worth the trouble. I have consistently found the ET2 to yield a sound that is more like the sound of real music: spacious, well defined (especially with a higher pressure pump), with dense images, and good extension at both ends; and no emphasis on any one frequency range. Only the SME V gave me "more" bass; but that bass was unrealistically bloated. Never have I experienced a problem with cartridge/cantilever wear that I can attribute to the arm.
My point is, that with all the assertions, postulating about their superiority, and all the supposed technical advantages of pivoting arms, there has been in this thread, a conspicuous absence of accompanying discussion about the way that they sound. This is, unfortunately, a familiar story in audiophile circles; isn't it? Focus on the technical points as a way to justify our own preferences and bias, without a commesurate emphasis on what it's supposed to be all about: Does the arm make music? That, defined as getting closer to the sound of the real thing. It's always the same story: this or that has less of this kind or that kind of distortion, so it must be better. This or that phono pre has less deviation from RIAA standards, so it must be better. Blah, blah, blah. HOW DOES IT SOUND!? Compare how it makes a string section sound on a good recording. The ET2, BTW, lets strings sound glorious. The SME, pretty good except for the celli, and basses; way to bloated. The Rega: not even in the same league, with little harmonic complexity. Just as an example. |
03-01-10: Dertonarm
I haven't seen yet a linear tonearm really taking into account the way the suspension system of any cartridge is working. Great explanation of the lateral forces, Dert. It would be interesting to know if this heightened lateral force in linear trackers results in increased distortion and/or cartridge suspension/motor wear & damage. It would be nice to hear from cartridge manufacturers if they'd noticed any wear on their retip/repairs unique to carts used with linear arms. While that force may be greater, it may not actually affect performance/longevity in the real world. Although, I'd find that hard to believe if it is as significant as it seems. |
Dear Oilmanmojo, let me briefly add that the vertical mass in the best linear trackers does indeed match the mass in most pivot tonearms.
But the horizontal moving mass is a completely different manner. In the pivot tonearm the mass in more or less equally dissipated on both sides of the bearing - i.e. on two antagonistic levers.
As it is moving around a center it puts no additional force on the stylus (if the bearing is any good....) especially so, as the bearing, armpipe (aside from slight off-set...) and cantilever are in line.
In the linear tonearm the horizontal mass is pushed forward by one (cruel...) lever only and at the tip-toe of that lever is the stylus /cartridge while most of the mass is far away but has to be moved by your stylus and the suspension.
The force pulling from 90° off which is not what your cartridges' suspension system was made for.
This dilemma was minimized by attempts as the ones of Lou Souther and Versa Dynamics with ultra short armpipe - only to add problems in other areas (very sensible to wrap/height changes in vinyl (the Versa Dynamic did feature vacuum hold-down for good reason - it is mandatory with its tonearm)).
I still believe that the striking and logic promise of linear tonearm will one day bring out a design addressing all the big problems - but so far this has not been done.
I haven't seen yet a linear tonearm really taking into account the way the suspension system of any cartridge is working. |
I have been doing some research on the issue of stylus pressure that a pivot arm vs a linear arm exerts as the record progresses from the outer edge to the inner grooves. There is some pretty good information on the airtangent and Kuzma airline arms concerning this issue. In fact i found one reference where a reviewer compared the Airtangent to an SME arm on a VPI table. In addition, I had several discussions with some pretty good engineers who helped me understand the issue a little better. After going over it several times, I recognize now what Dertonarm, Raul, Atmasphere, and others were trying to relate. The easiest way to say it is that for two tonearms of equivalent mass, the pivot arm will result in less pressure applied to the stylus and suspension system of a cartridge as the stylus moves across the record. If you state the issue as forces applied and represent the forces as vectors in the xy horizontal plane. (assume x axis is the path of the linear arm), the linear arm forces are entirely represented by the x vector. As the pivot arm actually strikes an arc across the record, the distance the stylus moves is further and part of the forces is represented in the x axis and part of the forces are in the y axis. In addition, the pivot point also reduces the net force needed to move the arm. It is a similar to why a lever can lift a 100 pound weight with less than 100 lb downward force. Having said this, the better linear arms attack this issue by having less total mass that a typical pivot arm. The airtangent site clearly indicates this issue and explains how they attach this issue by using the spindle as a fixed part and using a bearing sleeve as the moving part as well as using a carbonfiber armwand to decrease weight without giving up stiffness. In addition, the manufacturing tolerences of the arm is pretty small to minimize the "Slop" that Dertonarm indicated was an issue with these types of arm. Similar comments are also on the Kuzma site outlining their approach to the problem. I ended up addressing this issue (by accident) as I modified the maplenoll arms by eliminating the aluminum wand and heavy, cumbersome vta adjustment bracket with a carbonfiber arm, spindle and wood headshell. My arm on my apollo is a very short ceramic armwand and very lightweight spindle. I have not compared the total weight to my modified arm on my ariadne signature but i believe it is lighther due to the very small length. Obviously, without the vacuum platter, this short length would be an issue. I appreciate the various contributors to this string as it opened my eyes to some more opportunities to continue to improve the system i have. I have invested pretty heavily into some top notch cartridges and understanding this issue better will help me protect that investment. Having said this, I do like my modified arm and look forward to trying to develop a smaller mass arm for my apollo. |
02-27-10: Dertonarm
I would even say it neglects fundamental aspects of mechanic and physic. But nothing in physics can be obvious enough not to be questioned if it doesn't fit the preference of an audiophile. Must have been a test of true insight and scientific brilliance.
Oh my. Main Entry: snarky Pronunciation: \ˈsnär-kē\ Function: adjective Etymology: dial. snark to annoy, perhaps alteration of nark to irritate Date: 1906 1 : crotchety, snappish 2 : sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner snark·i·ly \-kə-lē\ adverb |
Atmasphere is absolutely correct.
"The idea that a pivoted arm of correct effective mass is going to induce greater side-to-side excursion than an air-bearing straight-tracking arm strains credulity."
I would even say it neglects fundamental aspects of mechanic and physic.
But nothing in physics can be obvious enough not to be questioned if it doesn't fit the preference of an audiophile. Must have been a test of true insight and scientific brilliance.
Oh my. |
Following a near 3 decade hiatus from records, I acquired via AudiogoN a VPI HW-19 MKIV with an ET-2/Benz Glider combo...I've been mesmerized by tangential arms since I first saw the beautiful Rabco ST-7, as a teenage nascent audio-enthusiast, in magazine adverts and the beguiling B&O 4002, in person...I favored the Transcriptor Vestigial for radial arms. I suppose I'm examining it from a different angle :-)
Enjoy!
Sam |
I dug out the old article (High Performance Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, by Ted Simmons/David Tarumoto). Here is what it says: "...normal pivoted arms must confront this same dynamic alignment issue. To look into this motion we mounted an Orsonic Side Force Checker SG-1 in ET2 and SAEC WE 407/23 (double knife-edge pivoted) arms. The SG-1 is a cartridge complete with cantilever and stylus that has an indicator pointer attached to the cantilever to show the relative motion of the stylus. It's a very handy device to check the amount of side force correction to dial in with pivoted arms. Here we're using it to measure more dynamic changes.
"In this case, we used it to see the relative side-to-side motion when tracking sample LPs. Normal LPs, plus those with obviously off-center holes and those with definite warps were tried.
"Surprisingly, SAEC's WE 407/23 showed a much wider side-to-side movement of the pointer than the ET2 on all of the sample LPs that we used. This happened when playing both test records (produced very precisely) and typical mass market pressings."
Interesting, but only one data point, and not able to be easily verified. |
02-26-10: Danwkw
Yes, Darkmoebius, Scheu with Conductor and Acoustic Solid with Ortofon I forgot to mention that the Das Laufwerk is a dream table for me, I would love to own one(especially in slate). I also came very, very, close to owning an Acoustic Solid "One" a few years back, but could not find a reliable way to have it crated and shipped cross country. Both are great manufacturers. |
This has been a most interesting thread. I started this thread off by saying that I thought linear tracking arms sounded better than pivoted arms that I had been used to. I still think my humble ET-2 sounds outstanding. However, in the interest of further education, I am going to switch back to a pivoted arm and see how it fares. I am conviced after reading all the posts that it is worth another try. The only dog I have in this fight is that I want the best sounding arm that I can afford. If the Fidelity Research FR64s sounds better than my ET-2, I will be one happy camper. I hope it does and from everything I have read, it should.
For the here and now, I have torn my table down (VPI TNT) in anticipation of the FR64s arriving. I have removed my Benz Glider and have it safely installed back in its box. The ET-2 arm and mounting board have been removed. I took my TNT bearing to my local machinist for a check up. He didn't like the fact that the tolerance between the platter shaft and the bearing bushing was .004". He pressed out the original bushing and machined a new bushing and line bored it so it now has a tolerance of .001". My bearing should now be better than new. I am waiting for the new blank armboard to arrive from VPI as well as the FR64s arm and Orsonics headshell. This should be interesting.
FWIW, I have referred to my TNT as a MKIII but I know now that is not true after studying some pictures of the TNT evolution. I believe it is an original TNT that had new corner feet installed like the TNT III. I had previously removed the two extra pulleys from the T-bar and snapped in covers from VPI to cover the two holes that were drilled in the plinth. I have replaced the motor with the 300 RPM version and I have a new SDS that I bought to replace the PLC. |
Re:Thegage
"I would agree (and the second link below seems to come to the same conclusion) that mechanical linear trackers (whether passive or active) do put excessive side force on the stylus, in a way that would lead to poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge."
I have read every post so far, and I appreciate (accept) the theory that state of the art pivoted arms are currently better, but where is the evidence that this "poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge" actually happens. I am beginning to suspect that the argument concerning the "best", is beginning to become the argument that the "other" in any form is unacceptably flawed. I protest. |
The idea that a pivoted arm of correct effective mass is going to induce greater side-to-side excursion than an air-bearing straight-tracking arm strains credulity. |
I see alot of discussion here about the theoretical downside of linear arms relative to forces on the stylus/cantilever, but not much real-world testing.
OTOH I have an article from High Performance Review circa 1986, where they used a special test device, the Orsonic Side Force Checker SG-1, to measure stylus deflection of the device mounted to an ET-2 arm compared to the device mounted to a pivoted arm (can't remember which arm right now, I'll have to go check). The pivoted arm showed much greater side-to-side deflection of the stylus during play as compared to the ET-2, the conclusion being that the pivoted arm was causing greater wear of the stylus and cartridge suspension. Unfortunately they haven't made the Orsonic for a while, as it would be interesting to make the same test with more modern pivoted tonearms.
I would agree (and the second link below seems to come to the same conclusion) that mechanical linear trackers (whether passive or active) do put excessive side force on the stylus, in a way that would lead to poor performance and quicker wear of the cartridge.
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vinyl&n=155855
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/34126-opus-3-cantus-parallel-tracking-arm.html#post395258 |
Yes, Darkmoebius, Scheu with Conductor and Acoustic Solid with Ortofon but not vice versa. That was not supposed to be an official comparison for both arm designs(not solely for that purpose). However, that's the closest comparison we could have at that time. We also had time and other limitations, too. Fortunately, both turntables are high mass, rigid designs(Note: Acoustic Solid's 35kg platter had been covered with a 5-mm acrylic layer and a thin leather) with separate motors, string-driven, on identical Solid Steel racks, and all other rigs were basically the same, except the phono cable.
I have to stress that both TT setups were performing so well that no one of them could capture all our hearts at the same time. That is to say, when we play solo violin, Scheu combo prevails. When we played piano or vocals, both perform very well but in a rather different way. When we play pipe organ in the church, AA combo outperforms Scheu. But no one could predominantly outperform the other with all types of music we had thrown in.
Unfortunately, Scheu were only with 2 arm plates one mounted with Conductor and the other with Scheu's own unipivot. Both plates weren't made for an Ortofon. (Off the topis, we sometimes found a two-armed TT sonically less ideal...maybe due to the resonance of the idle one feedback on the TT.) At that time, we had removed Scheu's arm(for unipivot it was very easy) when playing with the Conductor II.
We had a Conductor mounted on Transrotor ZET 3 with Dyna Te Kaitora II later...the results were not as satisfactory as(thin sounding, no bass authority, etc) on Scheu with PC-1. Maybe it was due to wrong matching of arm/cart/other rigs' synergy. I wish I could have made more arms switching if I know you may ask me this question, Darkmoebius;)
Best regards
Dan |
Hi Danwkw,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you tried the same cart on two different tables and arms, but never on the same table with both arms?
So, your test was PC-1/Conductor/Das Laufwerk, then PC-1/Ortofon AS-212/Acoustic Solid Wood?
But never PC-1/Conductor/Das Laufwerk, then PC-1/Ortofon AS-212/Das Laufwerk or PC-1/Ortofon AS-212/Acoustic Solid Wood, then PC-1/Conductor/Acoustic Solid Wood?
That's two completely different turntable designs of completely different materials (Scheu's delrin/acrylic vs Acoustic Solid's wood/aluminum).
How do you separate out the the influence of the turntable from that of the tonearms in that test?
BTW, I own a Scheu Premier MK2 w/ the upgraded 80mm platter and their flagship Tacco tonearm AND the Cartridge Man Conductor linear-air bearing arm. Unfortunately, the Premier I own is not a 2-arm version, so I can't do both at the same time.
I wish I could, then I'd just get another Denon DL-103D and see for myself, or a couple of Music Makers. |
Amendment: I did try another cart, Dyna Te Kaitora II, with Conductor II air-bearing arm...sorry for the mistake.
Dan |
>>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 |
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 |
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. |
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...... |
>>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 |
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. |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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 :-) |
Dear Nandric, he means "tongue in cheek"...... |
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). |
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. |
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. |
Dear Albertporter,There are foreigners in this forum.What
do you mean by :^)))?
Regards, |
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. |
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? |
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. |
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. |
