Over the last 40 years I have owned 3 turntables. An entry level Dual from the '70's, a Denon DP-52F (which I still use in my office system) and a Rega P3-24 which I currently use in my main system. All of these turntables have had straight tonearms. I am planning on upgrading my Rega in the near future. Having started my research, I have noticed that some well reviewed turntables have curved 'arms. My question: What are the advantages/disadvantages of each, sonic or otherwise? Thanks for any input.
Dear friends: This kind of discussion ( pivoit tonearm alignment subject. ) always makes me to look over the information I have and that I learned through the years to find out if something I learned is wrong and rectify it or to confirm " things " are ok.
Well, in these kind of discussions almost always I learn something from other gentlemans and this time was not different.
The comment from genesis 168 ( refering to Stevenson A alignment. ):
"""
Higher on the outer grooves so what? The outer grooves are easier to track..... """
I gave an answer to that and the answer came in that precise moment:
way before the stylus tip hit the first LP recorded groove Stevenson A approach tell us its inherent high distortion levels on those grooves against Löfgren approaches where the Stevenson A and Löfgren equations solutions are what numbers says with a zero tolerance in the overall cartridge/tonearm parametrs set up .
That's what mathematics says but is almost impossible to make any of those set ups with zero tolerance and this fact means that " things "/distortion levels always will be higher that what the solutions says and we have to remember here that distortions generates harmonics too and that over the LP play exist IMD too.
For years I posted here the critical importance of accuracy in the cartridge/pivoted tonearm set up subject and now is more clear why.
That accuracy level ( ideal: zero tolerance. ) is even more important because all the imperfections of the LP it self as in the cartridge too and because of the different recording velocities recorded over the LP surface.
As you know my target is to be/stay nearer tothe recording but as you know what is in the LP recorded surface is not what is in the recording, far away from there.
In theory we can have what is in the recording when the phono stage applys the inverse RIAA eq. where the magnified set up " errors " ( non-zero tolerances. ) during the LP play along the distortion levels of each kind of alignment are magnified again on that inverse severe eq.
Taking all those in count Stevenson A is the worst of those kind of alignments and seems to me with out today facts that can justify it use for many audiophiles in the world as some of you in this forum.
The alignment cartridge/pivoted tonearm has to live inside of what is surrounded with and not only taking in count the inside grooves alone as and island in the earth because exist a whole relationship with all what surround the overall analog alternative.
Stevenson A approach is an extreme approach with extreme consequences due that he puts the inner null radius ( zero wte. ) at r1. I already explained the " terrible "consequence about that for me preclude the use of this kind of alignment or similar one.
Now, I can be wrong and if I'm I would like that some one of you clarify this subject for me. Thank's in advance.
Dear @clearthink: In 2014 ( not in the 70’s-80’s. ) that same gentleman had these kind of misunderstood on the whole alignment overall critical and important subject ( for an audiophile nothing is more critical and important that this alignment subject in the analog experience alternative. ). Somewhere some one asks this when comparing different kind of ( Löfgren/Stevenson A and the like. ) alignments for a tonearm/cartridge:
"" I can’t see a pattern in the graphs ........ How can you the second null point be different if the first is the same unless you are comparing ... """
then he answered this:
""" Not sure what "pattern" you are looking for in the graphs. ................ Remember that each one puts the stylus tip at a different distance from the pivot point, thus producing a different "overhang". That different position produces the two differing null points. """
that is a huge misunderstood on the subject. Of course that you already know why as many of the audiophiles in this board know and I know they know because I know very well some of them. As a fact I learned from some of them.
Some time now I would like to say the same from you in this special subject.
One thing you are not taking in count that happens every day at every internet different forums is that always com,es " newcomers/roockies " that ( different from you that born with the subject knowledge level. ) just does not have any single idea not about different kind of alignments but that has not idea how to set up the cartridge/TT/tonearm set up and the audiophiles in all those boards are the ones that can help them when ask about and they ask all the time.
@clearthink: Dead silence?, well that's your privilege. Btw, you are not alone on that audio subject: at least one revier shares your knowledge level.
If you think that is my privilege why don't you be quiet and leave me alone why do you think it is my job to engage with you and when I ignore you you have the right to come in here and insult me and others? I can answer that you are immature and like many in your generation you have a strong sense of entitlement and when you are not treated in the royal way you insist on you stomp your feet in anger and preach to the group about your superiority. I expect this post in response to you will be deleted but I am telling you Raul to leave me alone I don't need your permission to act or not act as I see fit. thank you and I hope some day you can find gainful employment and move out of your mothers basement.
Sorry Raul I don't debate fools and I don't accept ultimatums so you can take your threat and do what you like with it but you are in no position to inform me that this is my "last chance" to do anything. I realize that you are a very sensitive person who's feelings have been badly hurt by the embarassments you have suffered here but you have really brought that on yourself and are in no position whatsoever to blame it on anyone else it is time you accept some responsibility for your own behavior and not harass others on this forum who are following the rules.
May be flogging a dead horse here, there've already been many comments and much heat. I listen mostly to Classical; many orchestral works end in bombastic crescendi — alas, they are on the inner groove, the most difficult to track. Achieving the lowest distortion averaged over the entire record is not much use if the finale, the culmination of the musical message, utterly disintegrates. Using a linear-tracking vs pivoted arm illustrates the difference clearly — try the finale of Mahler 3.
People who don't listen to Classical may not experience this, other kinds of music have soft endings, so talk of IGD seems nonsensical — some even scoff at its existence, a view that defies Physics. I would much rather have slightly higher distortion in the earlier parts of the recording (where the music is easier to play and the distortions less audible) so that the climax holds together with all its majesty and power.
Yes it's a compromise, and many of the contributors here are absolutist in their views — my way or the highway — and become fierce when their views are questioned. I'm willing to try every approach and judge by the results as I hear them. I'll even try Stevenson, though Raul might politely call me a moron. Maybe I lack the "moral fiber" to "fight passionately" for my unalterable dogmas, and attack those who disagree with them — some of the language in this thread is quite fiery — but I have no dogmas, only questions, gray areas, and a few theories.
There's an old joke about Academia: "The reason the disputes are so vicious, is that the stakes are so small." The same could apply to Audiophilia, where the stakes are even smaller...
Dear @bimasta: The whole inner grooves " problem " ( if any ) depends on many parameters where perhaps the more critical to avoid the problem or to live with are: " zero tolerance " through the TT/tonearm/cartridge alignment set up, self cartridge tracking abilities, " perfect " match between cartridge/tonearm, tonearm damping levels and tonearm bearing design.
If any one of us takes enough care on those parameters you can be sure that that problem will stay at minimum and you will not aware of its existence.
Now, there are several classical compositions/recordings withpassages recorded at very high velocities in the middle of the LPs or before it where we can listen the same inner groove problem because those paremeters I metioned are not up to the task.
Stevenson A gives not real advantage over the other alignment types ( including the Stevenson B. ) and goes against the MUSIC experience but it's up to you if you can live with 20 minutes of higher distortions levels in favor of the last 1-2 minutes, fine. As I said is up to you.
Obviously that's not my target but stay as nearest I can fulfilling all those parameters I mentioned.
bimasta: I forgot other parameters that has influence on those inner groove " problems: one is how good is cleaned the LP, other the stylus tip condition/wear leavels and clean level ( this clean level of stylus tip is important because after the first 20 minutes on playing a LP side the tip has not the same clean level that when started that LP side and when arrives to the inner grooves there is a true problem of the accumulated dust at the tip in the inner grooves. ) and other is the room temperature/humidity levels.
Some f all those parameters we can think are not important but all of them has influence about and makes a difference. Example: stylus tip dust has its own distortion levels per sé, it does not matters if the cartridge is playing at the middle or inner grooves LP side but after 20 minutes of accumalation of dust at that stylus tip the problem is not only the self distortion levels but that that accumulation of dust at the tip makes that the cartridge tracking abilities goes really lower than what we could think and this facts produce higher distortion levels and mistracking.
One internet guru who refrains from posting here these days gave a qualified recommendation for Stevenson alignment, as follows: If your LPs are "vintage", meaning original pressings from the golden era of the late 50s and 60s, he saw a merit in using Stevenson based on the idea that those LPs have grooves nearly all the way to the label. Whereas he thought Stevenson might be avoided, if you are primarily listening to later production LPs, where there is on average a wider empty space between the innermost groove and the label. I don’t even know for sure that his assumption is correct, but there you are. For myself, I tend to use whatever alignment was in the mind of the person who designed that particular tonearm. So, for vintage Japanese tonearms that I own, I use Stevenson. Otherwise, not.
The obsession with tracking angle error causing inner groove distortion is interesting to me. Many of those who have listened to the few tonearms in production that are to be mounted such that the stylus underhangs the spindle and which have zero headshell offset angle are struck by the lack of such "distortion" (read reviews of the Viv Float or the RS Labs RS-A1), despite the fact that such tonearms generate very large tracking angle errors, especially out at the outer grooves and at the innermost grooves. Makes you think maybe tracking angle error is not the cause of the perceived (and/or measured) distortion.
Dear @lewm : "
I tend to use whatever alignment was in the mind of the person who designed that particular tonearm.. "
Lewm, sorry for my ignorance and if you can please explain me the direct relationship between tonearm design and choosed alignment. How that choosed alignment can helps to stay with overall lower tracking distortions against other alignment type?
Knowing you it has to exist something extremely critical that you are aware of and that I'm taking in count and always is a learning day and as always I'm willing to improve my ignorance level.
Dear @lewm : Even that is out of my mind and that today makes no sense to me ( but I can be wrong and that's why I ask you about. ) that a tonearm design be designed around a specific kind of alignment type y found out that the vintage Japanese tonearms stays around Stevenson A alignment and why mI said " around " because things are that the alignment numbers they gave are non perfectly accurate but only near the precise/rigth alignment calculations. I think only the SAEC 8000 is near LÖfgren A calculations but non-accurated one.
So, seems to me that they did not took enough care about and this kind of fact only says that tracking distortion levels are higher that what you could think.
It's no surprise for me that I found out these kind of non-accurate tonearm set up numbers in almost all japanese tonearms and only confirm what I posted here and that in the " old times " there were a not very clear of the importance of accuracy in the tonearm/TT/cartridge overall set up alignment.
"It's no surprise for me that I found out these kind of non-accurate tonearm set up numbers in almost all japanese tonearms and only confirm what I posted here and that in the " old times " there were a not very clear of the importance of accuracy in the tonearm/TT/cartridge overall set up alignment."
That is funny Raul that you keep repeating this silly made-up "fact" when I have already proven to you in this very thread that this claim is wholly mistaken and yet you feel a need to keep repeating it as though you are some visionary who has brought the importance of proper tonearm alignment to the world of audio and that we should all be so grateful to you for sharing your wisdom with the group. I guess real facts aren't necessary when your world of "facts" includes such funny fantasies I suppose this is the nature of "fake news."
Dear @lewm : In all japanese vintage tonearms and even today the set up specifications are jus totally non-accurated. Dynavector is a clear example on that when states 15mm. for overhang and even that is near Stevenson A calculations is out of it as is too the offset angle stated by them and it’s does not matters if we choose IEC or DIN for the calculations.
Obviously that these kind of facts tell us that if we are following the tonearm manufacturer set up specs then we are totally wrong and what we have are higher distortion levels. Of course that’s not our fault to follow the manufacturer instructions. We assume that what they tell us is what we have to do.
I already check all the information from the manufacturers on all the japanese vintage tonearms and no one is accurate about.
All those facts along the " terrible " misunderstood on the subject by that reviewer ( MF. ) confirm that " people " ( including audiophiles. ) do not cares seriously about and maybe they did not because they do not understand the 1938 Löfgren great mathematics studies, its premises and critical importance.
Again, accuracy is the name of the game in TT/tonearm/cartridge alignment with any kind of tonearm design.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R.
lewm, I don’t know if you remeber that I told you that for my 505 set up I used Löfgren alignment with better results than whit the Dyna set up specs. Well, there are very good facts/reasons about.
All those facts can tel us that maybe don’t exist two analog rig set up that gives same distortion levels using same TT/tonearm/cartridge with the same alignment type due to those inaccuracies on the overall set up. Where differences in set up means different quality performance levels.
Raul, I respect your opinion, but I don't necessarily do everything as you would do it. For my 505, I do not use the Dyna spec; I use Stevenson. Stevenson allows the cartridge body to be parallel to the long axis of the headshell and seems to sound fine. Unlike yourself and apparently some others, I do not sit around fretting about tonearm alignment once the set-up is completed. I just listen. Some few years ago, I wrote on this forum that when I set up the 505 according to Lofgren/Baerwald, and as you must know too, the cartridge cannot be aligned with the long axis of the headshell (it must be twisted toward the spindle with respect to the headshell axis), and I heard some distortion that was troubling. When I then re-aligned with Stevenson, to me it sounds better and the distortion I heard is now absent. One must be careful about assigning cause and effect, but there was certainly a correlation between alignment and an audible distortion, in my case, in my system, to my ears. I don't know why Clearthink is prone to hysteria, either.
Raul, After posting, I saw your earlier question to me, up the thread. The chosen headshell offset angle and the suggested P2S distance do give a clue as to the intention of the designer regarding alignment geometry. If you are willing to twist the cartridge (in the horizontal plane) in the headshell, then you can achieve almost any geometry with any tonearm, I agree.
Dear @lewm : What you like it is not the main subject here, as I pointed out before.
In the other side I already posted all the facts around Stevenson A alignment. Useless to repeat again.
Higher quality performance levels mainly depends to mantain the audio system distortions ( every kind. ) at minimum. Stevenson A preclude to achieve that critical target but is up to you.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
