@lewm : " the theory would predict that the Viv should sound grossly distorted (your term) "
Not really a theory but imagination of some gentlemans.
R.
Showing 43 responses by rauliruegas
@lewm : Where posted I the VIV should sounds awful? what I posted is:
" When yo said that your other 3 cartridges sounds better in reality is not true BETTER but different because its stylus tip angle is running the grooves in way different angle and a " little " more away of what was recordd "
Where posted I? : ""by insinuating that I am not a qualified listener or that my equipment is not qualified to reveal obvious problems due to excessive TAE. ""
The main issue is this:
" Löfgren’s paper is the earliest work which gives an analytical treatment of tracking distortion and develops a new optimum alignment method to minimise it. "
Cartridge tracking distortion level has a direct interrelationship with the cartridge tracking angle and as near this tracking angle is to tangential as nearer will be the stylus tip to pick up what " really " are recorded in those groove LP modulations.. Other tonearm " aberrations "/colorations/distortions developed by each single different tonearm design is other matters as is its set up. Everything the same Löfgren alignment first than all puts us nearer to the recording other than tangetial designs. What could happens after that is another kind of subjects, because first that all is to pick up those grooves information in the " nearer the rigth " way.
" I have no dog in that fight. " well, you are seen a " fight " where did not exit or existed: NEVER existed because Löfgren: " he was the " inventor/creator " only with no one else. " Can you see a fight there?
R.
|
Dear @lewm , OP and friends: That some audiophiles as lewm like the VIV " sound " is just anecdotal and does not means the VIV design play performance is better that all the other pivoted designs due that the VIV design is a WRONG design is a wisecrack that makes money. Some questions comes to my mind: why are we looking for system room treatment? why we take care to match speaker/amps or cartridges/tonearm match? why this IC cable over the other? why we choose an electrical special source item? and why, why why? At the end what we are doing with is trying to put colorations/distortions at minimum to preserve the cartridge signal integrity We are not doing that to achieve higher colorations/distortions. Maybe some of us do it but not on porpose.
" And so their papers introduced the idea of having the cartridge overhang the spindle and then twisting the headshell with respect to a straight line emanating from the pivot. They did this work during what was still a very primitive era in home audio. Stereo did not exist, and most disc players were still of the wind-up variety. Many still used wholly mechanical Victrolas. " Lew, for years you are posting the same as a some kind of citic for the alignment solutions and over time you never gave any idea to change that very old kind of alignments that gives certainty of the tracking distortion levels and that puts those kind of distortions at minimum for the cartridge pick up in the best way what is recorded in the LP groove modulation. Only LT tonearms can makes a better job on that specific issue. Obviously VIV can’t do it. That you like it is only an anecdotal that has a value only for you and that’s the same for other owners. It’s a similar anecdotal issue as the Dava cartridge that shows around 5db FR deviations but some like it.
In the other side Baerwald that you named was not involved in the original tonearm alignment solutions:
Was Professor Erik Olof Löfgren of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. Löfgren’s paper is the earliest work which gives an analytical treatment of tracking distortion and develops a new optimum alignment method to minimise it. Löfgren applied mathematical rigor to the distortion model developed by Olney, and undertook a Fourier analysis on the model.
That was in 1938 and it’s a mistake to name Baerwald along Löfgren because the ONE down there is only LÖfgren, he was the " inventor/creator " only with no one else. Reviewers are wrong too when mention Baerwald instead Löfgren. You spend money as other owners in an audio item that by design is just wrong developing higher distortions, that that higher distortions like you do not say that the design is a top design . The VIV has other kind of not very good design issues that contributes to that " I like it ". When yo said that your other 3 cartridges sounds better in reality is not true BETTER but different because its stylus tip angle is running the grooves in way different angle and a " little " more away of what was recordd- Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
@lewm : Due that you are an owner and that that tonearm is not fixed to the plynth and taking your level of curiosity maybe you would like to make a couple of tests with out taking in count the null point position: first test with no underhung or overhung and second test with overhang. Of course that the tests is up to you. Anyway thank's.
R. |
Dear @frogman : You are rigth but the owners of that tonearm just posted that they like it and in reality no one gone in deep detail in their tonearms comparisons with selected LP tracks.
I even posted to intactaudio if he could share the LPs tracks that was using in his tests and his answer was:"dead silence ".
Such is life. R. |
Dear @intactaudio : Here are your main posts to me in even you talk about calculation where what I posted were all about LÖfgren A alignment calculations.
It’s really weird that in no other of your posts but only in the last one mentioned about " null points in LP surface existence ". Read carefully your first post to me with that Whaaa. From there came all other posts between you and me:
"
Whaaaa??? you need to specify at least four parameters which typically are alignment type, inner groove diameter, outer groove And Pivot to spindle (P2S). The math then returns you two null points, effective length (EL) and offset angle. The overhang (OH) is then found by subtracting P2S from EL. The knowns and unknowns can be reworked based on the information available. Effective length can be substituted with a known overhang and the P2S returned. dave "
"" Without overhang which requires an effective length to calculate the two null points cannot exist. dave ""
"" I doubt Løfgren would suggest it possible to get two null points without the addition of overhang no matter how much you point him to his math. dave """
What is all about?
Don’t you think that your last post should been the first one?:
"" those null points on a record surface and being able to trace through to them with a cartridge.....to get existence ""
Instead that you followed talking of calculations/math as me.
That’s is my stupidity.
R.
|
Dear friends: No one yet? Here I go to null points calculation according with what I posted .
R1: 60.325mm. R2: 146.05mm IEC Standard.
First the numerator in the formula:
2 x 60.325 x 146.05 = 17,621
Now the denominator that has two elements.
First one : 1 - 1/1.4142 = 0.2929 x 60.325 = 17.669 Second one: 1 + 1/1.4142 = 1.7071 x 146.05 = 249.32 Now the adds of both: 17.669 + 249.32 = 266.99 Solution: 17,621 / 266.99 = 65.998mm
That's the value of the inner null point in the Löfgren A alignment and coincide with the net calculator for both tonearms EL I posted. As any can see it needed only most inner/outer groove radius and nothing else.
R. |
@intactaudio : " for some reason you introduced this particular tangent in response to me simply mentioning in order to get two null points both overhang and offset are required. " Yes the VIV issue is useless for me but I return here because you posted totally wrong about tonearm alignment. All your statements about are totally false and Agon threads are reading for several audiophiles that can’t " learn " from you wat’s ( again ) a FALSE information. In the last 80+ years no one never questioned Löfgren A equations, NO ONE but you. Go figure ! . and from your posts you not even make the calculation using the Löfgren equation I linked, incredible ! ! ! you follow posting about.
Yes, I did it. Btw, any one of you already did it using IEC standard?
Now it’s really enough on the alignment issue where no one needs overhang/off-set angle to determine null points, only needs most inner/outer radius exactly as Löfgreen stated 80+ years agoin the linked formula.
R. |
Dear @intactaudio : want to give you an example of two Löfgren A calculations where even that the EL of the tonearms is different an even that in both the overhag ( obviously ) is different the null points in both tonearms have the same value ( you can check in any net calculator by your self . IEC standard. EL/overhang are two of the parameters you mentioned in your posts:
EL 250mm.: overhang 16.5mm. null points: 66mm and 120.89mm. EL 305mm: overhang 13.37mm same null points.
Obviously that the off-set angle is different too in both tonearms.
R. |
@intactaudio : Your doubt but not Löfgren, Baerwald or Stevenson in their respective A and B alignments.
" and not understanding its relationship to the discussion at hand serves little good. " Obviously speaking by your self understanding.
Btw, Löfgren certainly not " suggest " HE STATED/SPECIFIED it in that formula that comes from HIM.
Can you understand that HIM?
R. |
Dear @intactaudio : There is no :Whaaa?. This time you are way wrong/misunderstood on that specific issue .
" you need to specify at least four parameters which typically are alignment type, inner groove diameter, outer groove And Pivot to spindle (P2S.. "" Wrong, you don’t need the P2S that in the standards alignment calculations is not and input parameter in the equations but on those calculations P2S comes only by the difference between EL substracting the calculated overhang and that’s it. P2S came after overhang calculation. Been math on those original equations are manipulations, that everyone can " handled ", like the one made by the SAT designer chnaging the most inner groove radius and then following Lögfren A alignment that in theory achieves lower overall distortion level.
""" As a background note re the ’Löfgren A’ alignment and the null points. Null points are calculated from the inner and outer groove radii selected for alignment optimisation purposes. They are outputs only. They are not the drivers of the optimisation philosophy or arrangement, but rather the consequences of it. Of course, they may be specified for use in an alignment procedure or for when a particular alignment tool is being used, but their specification automatically pre-determines the values of the inner and outer groove radii. For the ’Löfgren A’ solution, the null radii are dependent only on the selected inner (R1) and outer (R2) groove radii,....""""
I can’t paste the equation so I will try to write it for the inner null point for Barwald/Löfgren A/Stevenson B:
R1 inner and R2 outer groove radius.
2 x R1R2 division/ ( 1-1/ divided by the sqare root of 2)R1 + ( 1+1/divided by the sqare root of 2 )R2
That’s the original equation and you can infere from that for the outer null point.
Any one of us can have our self kind of alignment just changing the most inner groove radius and like SAT running Löfgren A calculations. Löfgren B is an " aproximation " ( this is the word used ) that is a little different form the alignment A. There is a long historty on all those alignments and additions to those but the A alignment does not changed in its formulation of null points.
Effective tonearm length has no influence in the null points position. It’s are the same for a 250mm tonearm than for a 300mm one.
R. |
@intactaudio : " was about the requirement of both overhang and offset to get two null points. Without overhang which requires an effective length to calculate the two null points cannot exist. "
That could be for you but not for Löfgren him self that was who specified that formula, it was not me and certainly not you but LÖFGREN.
As a fact to calculate overhang the most inner/outer values are necessary in the Löfgren A . Effective length is necessary for the overhang calculation but not for null points calculations. Again it’s not me but Löfgren in his A alignment.
R. |
Dear @intactaudio : "" The combo of properly set offset + overhang is the only way to get the 2 null points. ""
Well, the standard alignments we all know including Stevenson B the null points are output parameters calculated from only 2 other knowed parameters that are:
most inner groove radius ( mm. ) and most outer groove radius ( mm. ). and from here came the standards: IEC, DIN or JIS. Null points calculation it not depends of any other parameter, not even tonearm EL. Again, that is for the knowed kind of alignments.
R. |
Dear @rsf507 : I could think that you already know that the recording/playback overall process is full of imperfections and trade-offs.
Could you share which is your target doing that question? or maybe you already have the answer.
R. |
Dear @gibsonian : " All tube system (SET best) and a Viv tonearm and sound like all the intoxicating distortions that "audiophiles" have adopted over the years will be enhanced to new super pleasing levels. Not surprising is it? "
No, not surprising because is what they like the more and that is the whole education all of us received by the corrupted AHEE where we all belongs.
Of course several audiophiles were and are excellent " students " even some of them with post-grade AHEE education and some others like me not really good. I love MUSIC and I learned to respect what that means taking actions against that corrupted education I received by AHEE . Through the time my audio ignorance levels improved thinking that way but " diversity " is part of the human world.
There is rigth now a thread where the OP wants to change its tube phono stage but AHEE post-graded gentlemans insist with that alternative even that he posted 1-2 times that wants to change:
R. |
@intactaudio : For an experienced " ears " gentleman as you that audible/inaudible always be served the best by a true high resolution system specially through its electronics/speakers
I hope you are not using tubes down there that could " vanish " true high resolution I can think that the choosed LP tracks were the ones you know as the fingers of your hand and I have not doubt about but curiosity for the LP choosed tracks because some of them could be a test reference for me and maybe to other audiophiles. Thank's.
R.
|
Dear @intactaudio : "" Maybe the distortion caused by this is inaudible to some people, but it is there and is audible to some of us. "" That statement comes by @mijostyn and I agree with. Audible/inaudible depends basically on room/system accuracy levels and resolution levels not only your " ears ". Could you detail your room/system and the LP tracks you are using for your listening tests? Thank's in advance. R.
|
Dear @mijostyn : " . Since it is impossible to standardize our hearing and the systems we listen to we are all thrown into a washing machine of varied opinions much of them based more on individual bias than real substance. " You are rigth and the " problem " is that to each one of us like different kind and level of developed room/system distortions. The owners of tonearms as the VV one just like the developed distortions that are the " holly grail " for its ears/brain. Are these gentlemans wrong? certainly not because it’s what they like. I already posted several times in different threads that no one can be questioning any single full subjective opinion, is untouchable even if for some of us could be wrong that opinion.. That’s the real problem with subjectivity but such is the audio world. Btw, each one of us has " different " level of common sense due that our first hand experiences and ignorance levels/knowledge levels are different too as is each one of us: true " open mind " or true " closed mind ".
" properly designed they both sound exactly the same, like nothing. If an armwand has a sound it is defective. "
In theory I agree because not only the tonearm arm wand has to has no " sound " at all but all tonearm but it’s almost imposible to achieve in audio real world playback tests. In some ways " colorations " ( by many reasons ) are developed in diffrent ways and those colorations are what we listen.
R.
|
Dear @atmasphere : Analog/audio is full of anomalies and the @mijostyn pointed out: " The point is to minimize it. " even what I " preach " in the forums almost always: put at minimum any kind of " distortions ". But subjectivity makes that some audiophiles instead to put at minimumm those " anomalies/distortions " just added more, VIV confirm it.
Anyway, for me the VIV/underhung issue is exhausted and at least for me useless to follow. To each his own. R. |
@intactaudio : " on a solid foundation " but your observations on the VIV owners has not that " solid foundation ".
Observation must be under control with very specifics targets to look for. First observation on the VIV is the manufacturer site that's a " bs " for say the least.
R. |
Dear @intactaudio : " it is an established pattern of observed behavior that sets the direction everyone travels. "
Problem is that that is not happening yet and could never happens. Even your " ovservation " of mistraking with only two sample tonearms means almost nothing, I already explained. In this thread that " observation " issue came from subjectivity gentlemans and not because I say it, this their way of thinking:
" sorry but I am not interested in nor do I want to understand all the theories. All that interests me is the music and how it sounds to my ears. "
Do You think that an observer with good equilibrium objective/subjective can in any way trust on that even after " thousands of observations?, makes no sense at least to me.
R. |
@intactaudio : " If we don't accept the possibility that something outside our realm of experience might be better the chances of actually moving forward and learning are slim....""
The thread is about VIV tonearm and till now you posted no evidences/facts that could be the foundation of your statement. Where are those evidences/facts/measurements?
Btw, even dirty stylus tip/LP grooves could cause mistracking and over 500 playing hour the stylus tip will shows an unevenly wear that could increment the normal mistracking.
R. |
@intactaudio : "" by comparison the same profile (microrisdge) on the underhung Schröder reference reminds me nothing of what I would expect hear from a similar error on a traditional arm. This simply tells me that there must be more to this than simply looking at the TAE as a single factor.....""
and if you make the same test with other 4-5 different tonearms you will listen different quality levels. Of course TAE is not the single factor for that. Almost any one know that exist several other cartridge/parameters that affects directly or inderectly the cartridge/tonearm combination developed listened distortions levels. I think the " simplistic " is you or have a misunderstood about. About mistracking @atmasphere is rigth: it belongs to the play proccess and exist several reasons why that could happens: way out resonance frequency between cartridge/tonearm combination ideal resonance frequency range, vibrations generated external/internally in the room/system ( that's why accurated bass range is a must to have as tonearm rigidity. ), even in LT tonearm designs exist " constant " mistracking " because at stylus tip ride levels that stylus tip has micro/tiny " jumps " following the LP groove modulations, I think that no one is totally sure if the LP off-center and its micro-waves could affects stylus tip tracking, exist some recordings where almost all tonearm/combinations mistracking due to the LP high velocity/amplitude recorded grooves as: original Telarc 1812, at least 2 tracks of original RR 45rpm Dafos LP, M&K D2D Bachs scores and other LPs like these ones Crytal Clear D2D organ scores , etc, etc., mistakes by the system owner in the cartridge/tonearm alignment and VTF parameter and the like, etc, etc.
R. |
Dear @atmasphere : "" one thing that is instantly audible is how much better the bass is, which, if compared to CDs or RtR tape of the same recording, .......... But its more than that, with the rigidity also comes a more transparent midrange and smoother highs ...... """ I agree and I could add something that I posted several times in different forums: as better the the bass range as better the other ttwo main ranges: mid-range and high frequency bacause the bass and its harmonics now are " clean " and impedes that the " high dust " before puts alot of dirt in the other frequency ranges. Tonearm rigidity is out of question. A good bass home system management makes per se not only that THD/IMD goes lower but the overall quality reproduced sound/MUSIC been improved by a wide margin and now the system listening sessions really shines as never before. MUSIC in home systems " belongs "/live in the bass range. That’s too why subs is a strictly necessity in any home system.
R.
|
@alan60 : Dear @alan60 : First than all I never posted that you are stupid. Second was you who posted that I have to have " open mind " and when I read your post decided that maybe and due that you posted " open mind " then you are that way. After your post I decided to gave you a really wider explanation starting from the LP recording proccess and the play proccess. Now that I re-read it was really wide. Follows my post that’s not about only theories but facts/clear evidence of what I posted before in other posts about to my surprise your direct answer was and is:
"" sorry but I am not interested in nor do I want to understand all the theories. All that interests me is the music and how it sounds to my ears. ""
Obviously rigth there did not appeared your touted " open mind ".
This is my last post to you ( period ) but do it a favor and please read again that post. No pun intented for any gentleman:
""" I’m answering you and will try to help you a little to understand the whole TAE main subject in this VIV underhung tonearm.
First you as any one elsedo not needs to know the alignment equations and its meaning or from where those equations came. The main subject it’s not about " open mind " and certainly not about subjectivity alone. The whole main subject is full of objectivity to understand how the cartridge stylus tip rides the LP groove modulations with been main target to pick-up 100% of the recording information ( it’s no way with an analog cartridge/transducer to pick up 100%. ). To understand all those first we have to understand in which " form/way " comes the groove LP modulations and for that we have to go to the recording proccess and inside it go to yhe cutting machine where the cutter head cuts the recording modulations in full tangential angle. From here and after 1-3 steps comes the LP you have in your hand. What need we to pick up " 100% " of the groove modulations in the LP and where those groove modulations where cutted in tangential angle/way? Easy: we need that the cartridge stylus tip rides those LP groove modulations in exactly the same way the cutter head did it and this is in : tangential way and from here came the LT tonearms that does not needs any offset andgle due that the cartridge stylus tip mounted in that kind/shape of tonearm is tangential one. In principle this is the best way to read th LP groove modulations: tangential way where does not exist TAE, well exist but is 0°. In all pivoted tonearms, no matters what but the pivoted LT designs, the cartridge stylus tip can’t read/ride/track way due that been mounted in a pivoted tonearm always exist a deviation of that ideal 0° TAE.
Then what’s the best we can do to minimize to put at minimum all over the LP modulated surface and at the same time puts the developed distortions for that TAE ( tracking/tracing error ) to pick-up all the signal information that can stays nearer to what a tangential tonearm/cartridge can pick-up and nearer to the recording? Every one has their own targets mine is to pick-up all TRUER information from those LP grooves with minimum developed distotions. To achieve those we must ( there is no other alternative, a least for now. ) try to align the cartridge mounted in the pivoted tonearm with the minimum off-set angle ( 0°, idealy ) that permit to pick-up maximum TRUE grooves information at minimum developed tracing distortion. What is nearest to 0°: 1° or 10°? ovbiously that 1° that puts me nearer to what in true is in the recording when 10° puts me not only away from the recording but at that angle or near that angle the pick up information is " untruer ". Here I’m not talking if we like what we listen/hear or not but I’m talking of what really happens down there.
Things are that in 1938 a gentleman Proff. Lófgren ( latter on other researchers/engineers. ) found out the solution to all those I posted here and his calculations ( that you do not needs to understand or to be a mathematrics guy. ) was and is the Standard in the analog industry and is knowed as Löfgren alignment where you only needs the rigth protractor to fix the off-set angle and overhang solution/solved by that Löfgren tonearm/cartridge alignment. Normally and due that that kind of alignment solution have two null points normally in tonearms of over 10" ( maybe even lower EL ) the tracking error due to the off-set angle is mantained at around 1° +,- 0.3° 90% of the time.
That’s the way to start TRUER to the recording.
VIV comes with no off-set angle and with a TAE of around 10° and due that only exist one null point the TAE 90% of the time is truly nearr to those 10° and this means that the angle of the cartridge stylus tip is way off in the VIV tonearm and is if off how can pick up TRUER information from the groove modulations? just can’t do it. The Löfgren Industry Standar is the way to go. I know that you and other VIV owners are really happy and I’m not against you. What I’m telling you is try to understand of what you are listeing that’s really different of what the gentlemans that use Löfgren are listening. Yes, our hobby is about MUSIC enjoyment but exist a quality gradation for that enjoyment and I know that @mijostyn as me likes to have that MUSIC enjoyment inside the higher quality gradation we/he can. """
I posted in this thread twice and many times in other threads: we need try to have and equilibrium between objectivity and subjectivity. Stay only in one of those extremes is just " wrong " and makes no sense to me. Again, no pun intented.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @clearthinker : I agree with you and for the best part with @mijostyn .
Well, more that twice times in this and other forums I posted that we listen/hear through all our body. This means we hear not only through the ears but through the sking nervous terminations, through the hair, through the bones, trhough our muscles and so on.
All those kind of sound body sensors we all have send the sound information to our neurons/brain whom along several and many of them unknowed functions ( that includes, emotion, feellings, remembrances, memories, mood handle and the like ) tell us and form a MUSIC whole scenario that could be way different of what we perceive through our ears. The " I like it " is full of misinterpretations and misunderstoods till we understand what surrounded it. We can attend two days in a raw to listen the same score in a hall and you can be sure that exist " differences " between listen sessions . It’s proved by science that we can " listen " over 50khz and obviously below 16hz.
Human been organism is extremely complex for say the least where not even the Universe is so perfect and complex for even scientifics understand it in full. Seems to me that several or almost all discussions in audio forums are more a place not to learn but to show who is rigth or wrong when at the end almost no one is wrong but only in the obvious. Like @clearthinker I believe too that new technology not always is better and one of several examples that could confirm that was the fail or not success of the Lasser Disc used to play LPs, where for whatever reason just disappeared after short time. I remember that more than twice I posted that all of you could make a test in a home listening sessions where your clothe one day where made by natura fabric: cotton, silk, wool, etc, etc and other day clothing polyesther fabric and you will know something is different.
Same if you listen naked against with your clothe in your body, You " listen " and perceives insoun in different ways. Don’t trust in my words and make those tests with the same choosed LPs tracks.MUSIC is and art just like poetry or look a Da Vinci work or the like. So all of us react of different way to the Mona Lisa paint or Rembrandt paint or poems by you choice of poetry or to other art as sculpture.
That’s why we like MUSIC and what we listen through all our body in the home system or in a live event. R. |
Dear @intactaudio : I think that I did not explain very well on that " bs " about zenith and it's not that be not important the real issue is that no kind of alignment or underhung/overhung tonearm design are the culprit about but the cartridge manufacturer. We have no single control of what a cartridge manufacturer does and if you buy a cartridge with a way off zenith then return to the manufacturer. We can't try to " solve " all errors down there, it's if like if you found out a mistake in the LP recording: you can't fix it. The recprding proccess is out of your control same with any audio tem where something is " wrong " and if really is wrong responsability to fix it/support you is the manufacturer.
I can't fix all errors in cartridge/tonearm alignments because even I made time to time " errors/mistakes " about. What I try is to understand what is happening down there at the stylus tip and after that take care for the cartridge/tonearm alignment be as accurated as I can accurated as permit my knowledge levels and alignment tools and that's all.
So, zenith is not my responsability and if I really can't fix why to be anal about:
""" Incorrect Zenith Angle on Cartridges, or incorrect coil angle at the end of the cantilever. Zenith angle refers to the angle in which the diamond is glued onto the cantilever. Sometimes it is not perfectly straight, it actually happens quite frequently. Or the coil at the end of the cartridge may not be mounted perpendicular to the stylus. If there is an inherent imbalance with the cartridge or zenith angle errors it is a cartridge problem. ""
Löfgren, Baerwald, Stevenson and the like are away from that issue no matters what.
If you or other gentleman already have an algoritm to fix it then we need all to know it. Again, yes is important that zenith.
R.
|
Dear @mijostyn : As you I posted several times that our ears are extremely limited tools/mechanism when the brain is a total different matters. The subjectivist, at least gentlemans as alan, are " closed mind " and almost always are entitled to that " stupid " ( no ofense to any one. ),: " I like it " that came from several years now thanks to some old reveiewers and audio distributors telling us: " trust your ears ".
Well I posted several times this information and I do it again because always there is something to learn about:
How The Ear Works (soundonsound.com)
The issue of zeniyh is almost bs because we all know that if exist something imperfect in the whole anolog subject is exactly ANALOG and what surrounded it. As you I'm not looking for " perfection " because is a losted war just before to start with.
Yes, accuracy is the name of the game in any room/system and the subjectivist want prove it with that : " I like it ".
My take is that we have to mantain a " healty " equilibrium between subjectivity and objectivity. Normally the extremes is futile/useless.
Subjectivitist thing that audiophiles as you , me and several others are just stupid non open mind people that can't understand: " I like it ".
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @alan60 : At least read and understand what I posted to you: "" I know that you and other VIV owners are really happy and I’m not against you. . Yes, our hobby is about MUSIC enjoyment but exist a quality gradation for that enjoyment . "
You posted:
"" In my audio world there is no right and wrong just what the individual prefers. ""
Then, you have your quality gradation level. Nothing wrong with that, that's the quality level that you like it. Fine with you, no problem at all and follow enjoying that quality level because at the end it's you who must be satisfied.
R.
|
Dear @alan60 : I’m answering you and will try to help you a little to understand the whole TAE main subject in this VIV underhung tonearm.
First you as any one elsedo not needs to know the alignment equations and its meaning or from where those equations came. The main subject it’s not about " open mind " and certainly not about subjectivity alone. The whole main subject is full of objectivity to understand how the cartridge stylus tip rides the LP groove modulations with been main target to pick-up 100% of the recording information ( it’s no way with an analog cartridge/transducer to pick up 100%. ). To understand all those first we have to understand in which " form/way " comes the groove LP modulations and for that we have to go to the recording proccess and inside it go to yhe cutting machine where the cutter head cuts the recording modulations in full tangential angle. From here and after 1-3 steps comes the LP you have in your hand. What need we to pick up " 100% " of the groove modulations in the LP and where those groove modulations where cutted in tangential angle/way? Easy: we need that the cartridge stylus tip rides those LP groove modulations in exactly the same way the cutter head did it and this is in : tangential way and from here came the LT tonearms that does not needs any offset andgle due that the cartridge stylus tip mounted in that kind/shape of tonearm is tangential one. In principle this is the best way to read th LP groove modulations: tangential way where does not exist TAE, well exist but is 0°. In all pivoted tonearms, no matters what but the pivoted LT designs, the cartridge stylus tip can’t read/ride/track way due that been mounted in a pivoted tonearm always exist a deviation of that ideal 0° TAE.
Then what’s the best we can do to minimize to put at minimum all over the LP modulated surface and at the same time puts the developed distortions for that TAE ( tracking/tracing error ) to pick-up all the signal information that can stays nearer to what a tangential tonearm/cartridge can pick-up and nearer to the recording? Every one has their own targets mine is to pick-up all TRUER information from those LP grooves with minimum developed distotions. To achieve those we must ( there is no other alternative, a least for now. ) try to align the cartridge mounted in the pivoted tonearm with the minimum off-set angle ( 0°, idealy ) that permit to pick-up maximum TRUE grooves information at minimum developed tracing distortion. What is nearest to 0°: 1° or 10°? ovbiously that 1° that puts me nearer to what in true is in the recording when 10° puts me not only away from the recording but at that angle or near that angle the pick up information is " untruer ". Here I’m not talking if we like what we listen/hear or not but I’m talking of what really happens down there.
Things are that in 1938 a gentleman Proff. Lófgren ( latter on other researchers/engineers. ) found out the solution to all those I posted here and his calculations ( that you do not needs to understand or to be a mathematrics guy. ) was and is the Standard in the analog industry and is knowed as Löfgren alignment where you only needs the rigth protractor to fix the off-set angle and overhang solution/solved by that Löfgren tonearm/cartridge alignment. Normally and due that that kind of alignment solution have two null points normally in tonearms of over 10" ( maybe even lower EL ) the tracking error due to the off-set angle is mantained at around 1° +,- 0.3° 90% of the time.
That’s the way to start TRUER to the recording.
VIV comes with no off-set angle and with a TAE of around 10° and due that only exist one null point the TAE 90% of the time is truly nearr to those 10° and this means that the angle of the cartridge stylus tip is way off in the VIV tonearm and is if off how can pick up TRUER information from the groove modulations? just can’t do it. The Löfgren Industry Standar is the way to go. I know that you and other VIV owners are really happy and I’m not against you. What I’m telling you is try to understand of what you are listeing that’s really different of what the gentlemans that use Löfgren are listening. Yes, our hobby is about MUSIC enjoyment but exist a quality gradation for that enjoyment and I know that @mijostyn as me likes to have that MUSIC enjoyment inside the higher quality gradation we/he can.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear @cleeds : In reality the issue is not " dogmatic theorists " but common sense founded in the Löfgren theory where he proved through scientific equation calculations what for many years are the Standard for tonearm/cartridge alignment, it’s not that we accepted it’s the Standard in the industry just like the RIAA eq. VIV Labs is telling you to come back to before 1924 because its " sounds better " and he gaves you no single factible evidence/fact/measure/theory that that could be true. As I said the overall issue is common sense that I know you have in very good shape.
Here part of the history of the Löfgren Standard that VIV LAbs " want it " to forget:
"""" During the recent decades, several important contributions on the optimisation of
Wilson minimised the change in tracking angle by applying offset angle and
In 1925, Wilson published the design of an alignment protractor [2] based on [1].
In 1929, a Wireless World article [3] (author unknown) included this statement: "It is
The first discerning statement on the origin of tracking distortion was made in 1937
The formal relationships between tracking error and tracking distortion remained
Löfgren developed an optimisation method which involved applying the minimax
The introduction of this inverse radius weighting complicates the analytical solution,
The optimum solution from Löfgren provides for an offset angle and overhang which
Löfgren’s paper was followed by papers from Baerwald [7] in 1941, Bauer [8] in 1945,
It’s not easy for me to post ( I’m not good with computers. ) the Löfgren equations and here a summary of it but exist several calculators in the internet where we can see all those equations.:
QUICK AND NOVEL ’LÖFGREN A’ ALIGNMENT CALCULATIONS The following equations provide a quick and novel (but reasonably accurate) method of calculating the optimum alignment parameters for the ’Löfgren A’ alignment, certainly good enough for practical alignment calculations. Using these equations, the optimum offset angle, the optimum overhang, and the resulting maximum |WTE| (at the three WTE peaks) may be easily calculated. The only input required is the arm length in mm. The equations utilise three numbers which remain essentially constant over the range of alignment values likely to be encountered in practice. Also included for comparison purposes are the results for the ’perfect Löfgren A’ solution. You may be surprised at the accuracy of these equations! The equations are based on an inner groove radius of 60.325 mm, and an outer groove radius of 146.05 mm. Notation: L = arm length, = optimum offset angle, d = optimum overhang, WTE = weighted tracking error. 1. Quick calculation of Offset Angle: L.sin ≈ 93.516 mm (Löfgren’s Linear Offset) so sin = 93.516 / L so = arcsin(93.516 / L) For L = 250 mm, sin = 0.374064: = 21.966 degrees The ’perfect Löfgren A’ result? = 21.963 degrees! 2. Quick Calculation of Overhang: 2.L.d - d 2 ≈ 7987 mm2 (Löfgren’s Ra 2 term) so d = L – SQRT(L2 - 7987) mm For L = 250 mm: d = 16.5180 mm The ’perfect Lofgren A’ result? d = 16.5198 mm! 3. Quick Calculation of Maximum |WTE| value at the three peaks: L.cos * max. |WTE| ≈ 2.709 degrees so max. |WTE| = 2.709 / (L.cos ) degrees per mm For L = 250 mm and = 21.966 degrees: max. |WTE| = 0.01168 degrees per mm The ’perfect Löfgren A’ result? = 0.01168 degrees per mm! CALCULATING TRACKING DISTORTION Tracking Distortion Löfgren showed that at lower distortion levels, tracking distortion is principally second harmonic in nature. He developed an expression which approximates this distortion, and presents it as the product of two factors in his EQN (22). This is an historically significant expression, as Löfgren was the first to show the relationship between the four variables involved in the generation of tracking distortion. A summary of Löfgren’s derivation of this expression is included in Section S10 of this analysis. Löfgren’s EQN (22) is: ≈ 𝑉 . 𝑅 This shows that the tracking distortion is proportional to the recorded velocity (𝑉) and tracking error (), and inversely proportional to the angular velocity of the record () and the radius (𝑅). As Löfgren notes, the first factor is independent of the position of the needle on the record, while the second factor changes continuously during play. We also must ensure the units are consistent. For example, if 𝑉 is in mm per sec, then R has to be in mm, and if is in radians per second, then has to be in radians. For the LP record with a typical peak recorded velocity of 100 mm per second and a speed of 33 1/3 RPM, the angular velocity of the record equals 360 (degrees per revolution) * 33 1/3 (RPM), or 12,000 degrees per minute, or 200 degrees per second. For consistency of the units, tracking error is then in degrees and groove radius is in mm. So the maximum distortion is: = 100 / 200 * tracking error / radius For example, with a tracking error of 2 degrees at a radius of 130 mm, the maximum distortion = 100 / 200 * 2 / 130 = 0.0077, ie, the second harmonic level is 0.0077 of the fundamental or 0.77%. We refer to the tracking error divided by the radius as the weighted tracking error or WTE, which means the tracking error weighted by the inverse of the groove radius. Thus, the maximum distortion is: = (100 / 200) * WTE = 0.5 * WTE (WTE in degrees per mm) RIAA De-emphasis. An added factor which Löfgren did not include, and which needs to be included, is the effect on the distortion of the RIAA frequency de-emphasis in the phono playback preamplifier. In accordance with the RIAA playback response curve, over the frequency range from 20Hz to 20KHz, which is about 10 octaves, the gain changes by about - 40dB. This averages at -4dB per octave, as Stevenson states. For the harmonic distortion components, this has the effect of attenuating the second harmonic by 4dB with respect to the fundamental, which means the distortion is lowered by this amount. This is a gain change of 10-4/20 , so we must allow for this by multiplying the distortion in EQN (22) by 10-4/20 . Thus, distortion = 0.5 * 10-4/20 * WTE (WTE in degrees per mm) In summary, the constant 0.5 * 10-4/20 converts the WTE figure in degrees per mm to a second harmonic distortion figure 30. At any playing moment, the actual level of distortion being produced is proportional to the recorded velocity (𝑉) at that moment. Thus, the distortion factor is the maximum expected distortion level. As a brief aside, we can convert the distortion constant = 0.5 * 10-4/20, which is approximately 0.3155, to the constant 1.76 used by Stevenson on page 215 of his paper. Stevenson used 100 mm/sec RMS (not peak) recorded velocity, so we must multiply the distortion constant by the square root of 2. He also used radius values in inches (not mm), so we must divide the distortion constant by 25.4. Stevenson also calculated percentage distortion, so we must multiply the distortion by 100. Thus, the distortion constant becomes 0.3155 * SQRT (2) * 100 / 25.4 = 1.7566, or 1.76, per Stevenson’s article. Thus, the maximum percentage distortion = 1.76 * WTE, where WTE is in degrees per inch. The RMS Value Löfgren based his ’Löfgren B’ alignment solution on the minimisation of the RMS distortion caused by tracking error. We’ll now investigate how we determine the RMS distortion. The RMS value of a varying quantity is a single figure which is a statistical measure of the magnitude of the varying quantity. In this application, the varying quantity is the distortion level occurring at each radius point across the record surface. The RMS distortion level is the single figure representing all these distortion levels. The %RMS distortion is simply the RMS distortion multiplied by 100. Procedure to Determine RMS Distortion To determine the RMS distortion, we perform two fundamental steps: 1. Define a distortion indicator or distortion factor, which is an expression indicating the level of distortion being produced at any point. 2. Apply the necessary mathematical procedure to the distortion factor. Löfgren’s EQN (22), described above, is a suitable distortion factor, as it indicates the level of second harmonic distortion caused by tracking error. As noted, it consists of two parts - a fixed part and a changing part. The fixed part, 𝑉 , is comprised of the peak recorded velocity on the record, divided by the angular velocity of the record. This is considered a constant, with a value of 100 / 200 or 0.5, as described. The changing part, 𝑅 , is comprised of the tracking error divided by the radius R, and it continuously changes during the play of the record. We refer to this part of EQN (22) as the weighted tracking error or WTE. The calculation of the tracking error is based on the inverse sine trigonometric function. The WTE is calculated using EQN J on page S9-6. Of course, the RIAA correction still needs to be applied to EQN (22) as discussed. In summary, the underlying method to calculate an RMS value includes the integration of the square of some function. In this case, the function is Löfgren’s EQN (22), where the WTE part is given by EQN J .
Cleeds, you said you read all the thread then I suppose between all posts you already did it with mines and especially the 3-4 latests ones that describes why I’m talking of common sense.
Look, the VIV Labs is not the first and not the last Stampede in audio where audiophiles " runs " with out really know why are inside the Stampede that arrives nowhere, that impedes to stay nearer to the recording. Yes, its develops a sound that they like it but that is far away from what it’s in LP groove modulation . Each one of us have our specific targets, the VIV followers has only one: I like it no matter what, good for them.
R. |
Dear @lewm : I will answer you even that you still do not to my pending question.
Overhung tonearms has 2 null points and this is an advantage over the underhung because in reality the overhung almost always are ridding with lower TAE than the underhung ones that rides more surface distance at higher TAE. I don’t like 12" for other reasons ( that I posted several times. ) and the same for LT tonearms.
Maximum TAE in a 12" tonearm is 1.36° ( Löfgren A IEC standard ) and for a 9" ONE IS 1.9° AND MY FAVORITE 10.5" IS 1.59°. Even with those minimal maximum TAE exist differences in tracing distortions minimal but exist: 0.43% average distortion vs 0.31% in the 12" My target is try to stay truer to the recording and I think that the best tonearm for my target is the 10.5° EL where the VIV just can’t compete.
Lewm, which kind of " fish " do you want? and when you decide that then follow try to pick-up. That’s it.
You said: why TAE so critical?. Well in the past tonearms came with no TAE or wrong TAE, so Löfgren decided ( along other gentlemans as Baerwald, Stevenson, Bauer, Pisha,etc, etc. ) to determine the " rigth " offset angle that could permit the cartridge stylus tip to follow more accurated the groove LP modulations to achieve minimum distortion tracing levels and VIV came to the audio world at says: forgeret all those because is wrong and this is the new " fish " and several audiophiles just believe with out any facts. So: do you think is critical or not? and please answer and don't be elusive about.
Useless all other: " like it ", " believes " or " thinking "
Where are the targets of all of you? then decide in concordance with.
R.. |
Dear @alan60 : " My take on all this is the company is being different for the sake of being different. " That’s what @clearthinker posted and seems to me is just rigth. I return to something I already posted: " all the designer/manufacturer statements he posted in his site has no single evidence to be true. " and are stupid for say the least. I don’t care about followers.
What K.Scott could says a bout has no importance to any one but you because there is not factible evidence/facts to support it. Almost all in this thread are already cooking the " fish " when not even pick-up the fish, go figure.
If you just did not understand that the VIV 10° of TAE avoid/impedes for the cartridge STYLUS TIP can ride in adequated/accurated way the groove modulations that’s where is the " rigth fish "and if the cartridge stylus tip can’t ride succesfully those modulations because of that very hifgh TAE then and before any kind of developed distortions as in any tonearm you just do not have the " fish " that is in the recording but a way different kind of fish that puts you away from the recording. If you can’t understand those facts then is you who has not the authority to chime about.
Your like it or the other " like it " owners or Scott are only good to each one of you that understand nothing what is really happening down there.
Please think on this: where " things " start/begin before you can listen any kind of sound? Yes, that stylus tip TAE be at minimum not at maximum as your tonearm 10° TAE.
Please first pick-up the rigth " fish " not the other. Gentleman just common sense. You are a VIV satisfied owner, good try to follow in that way but don’t try to win a war with out any real/true weapon. But that’s you and free to make what ever you want it.
R. |
Dear @lewm and dear friends: You answer with a question instead to first answer my question because was you who posted that statement.
Which the " best " way for the cartridge can ride the LP groove modulations and at the same time pick up all " the reporded signal " in those modulatiuons?
Obviously that’s through a LT tonearm that in theory has not TAE and the cartridge will rides those critical modulations. Next to that could comes the pivoted overungh tonearms that comes more or less with a maximum 1.5° on TAE. I’m not talking of tracking distortions only that the stylus tip be in " perfect " alignment with the groove modulations to pick up the information. It’s obvious that a TAE of 1.5° does not permits to pick up 100% information very near but not what a LT can does.
Those for me is where we have to start before all those generated distortions of every kind.
Now, we have the VIV underhung tonearm that according Yamaha has not 3° or 5° but nothing less than 10° where the stylus tip just can’t pick up the recorded information in the same way, with the VIV what we listen is away from the recording comparing a 1.5° TAE tonearm or LT.
For me is more important what the cartridge can pick up that all the other " things " surrounded till we listen that LP modulations. @melm posted that for him in his VIV the sounds is better than in the normal pivoted tonearm and that affirmation just can’t be true because to start the cartridge in the VIV can’t pick up ennough information ! ! !
My take is that the overall issue is about accuracy where 0° TAE in a LT is the champ, next that 1.5° stylus tip TAE not accurated but the next nearest about and the that 10° stylus ti TAE than just can't rides adequated those groove modulations in the LP. What follow those facts has " no importance " till we understand where is the begin for.
R. |
@dover : Yes, you are rigth. VIV is different. The issue with @lewm is what he posted to me where he gave no facts or a true factible explanation about:
" Even the "distortions" that you consistently preach against may be worse with the standard pivoted tonearms than with an underhung tonearm . "
Btw, @intactaudio you said that " numbers " is simplistic approach but I think rigth now it’s the only true fact we have on hand because what we listen is always extreme controversial and an endless issue. Facts are important in this VIV subject. You said: " the "design" of the underhung arm had the ability to absorb the energy caused by mistracking. " Almost all tonearm designers take in count the damping specific issue very seriously even here in Agon there is a dedicated thread to the tonearm damping issue. Why the underhung had the ability to absorb the energy/distortions developed by mistracking better than normal tonearms when we have out there the Townshen pivoted tonearm. The first defense against the mistracking belongs to the cartridge through its own tracking abilities and its kind of suspensi’n and cartridge body material to " stop " the feedback and ay kind of additional vibrations that the transducer will transform it. Even is the cartridge the first defense against the LP grooves surface feedback. The whole developed distortions by a 10° TAE is extremely complex for bla bla bla: measurements is the road at least to give us a " true " idea where we are " seated " and not only: I like it or I can’t hear higher distortions or I believe and the like.
The responsability about is directly by the VIV designer/manufacturer and I’m sure that if you ask directly to him he has not any fact/measurement about when at least Yamaha disclose that 10° TAE.
R.
|
Dear @lewm : This is what you and I posted where I’m not talking of " superiority ", I was only asking you:
" Even the "distortions" that you consistently preach against may be worse with the standard pivoted tonearms than with an underhung tonearm . "
I don’t know from where you have that statement with out showing any measurement about. "
Anyway The Yamaha chief engineer said that a sinwg of +,- 10° on tracking error is a small one and inaudible. First is not small against 1.9° maximum in a 9" conventional pivoted tonearm. Tracing distortions is developed even in tangential tonearms but in pivoted the tracking error contributes in high way to additional tracing distortions generated that some of us can discern when ovbiously you do not according your firt hand experiences: " I hear no problem that I can relate to the extreme TAE, with my RS Labs RS-A1. " , fine with me. Several years ago through the long MM thread I posted my first hand experiences ( i bougth it ) with the RS Labs that I owned for over 2 years ( at least 2 of those years was in its box/closet. ). I bougth it because was something new for me about tonearms ( in that time I owned over 20 tonearms. ) I mounted and followed all the RS Labs instructions but I never been really confortable with and return to its box till years latter some one was urged to get one and my tonearm gone for ever,
R. |
Dear @lewm : " Even the "distortions" that you consistently preach against may be worse with the standard pivoted tonearms than with an underhung tonearm . "
I don't know from whre you have that statement with out showing any measurement about.
The VIV site the designer neither has any measurement, he just said ( with out any true fact/number ): "" You may ask “What about trucking error?” , and the answer is, “The trucking error is a little bigger, but the sound is much better.” You can hear no distortion...""
Is it a joke?
Te average distortion in a 9" EL normal pivoted tonearm Baerwald IEC standard is 0.43% with a maximum of 0.65%. Sorry but many of you but @mijostyn have different kind of hypoyhesis that proves almost nothing.
Atmasphere said something as " The physics is inescapable. ". Numbers is a must to have other way all belongs to the audiophile famous : " I like it " and good that you like it.
WEe all are sensitive to the sounds in diffrent ways as mijost posted.
R.
|
Dear @melm : You are rigth, I as any one else are listening to many different levels of any kind of distortions developed at each one system link and each one of us #" like " the kind of distortions that let to enjoy the MUSIC the nearer it can to what comes in the recording grooves and nearer to live event.
When I said that that tonearm is " wrong " that certainly does not says sounds bad. As a fact several times with out know about we are listening to " wrong " things that sounds really good. So wrong is not sinonimous of bad.
Many years ago I had an experience with my SAEC straigth WE 8000 tonearm and my Dynavector XV-1, let me explain you: I try to listen this tonearm/cartridge combination using the SAEC protractor and due to the unique aligment characteristics determined by SAEC was almost imposible to align perfectly because the Dyna must be all the way back in the ceramic small headshell and the cartridge/tonearm wires " impeded " to mount it at satisfactory mind of. So I decided to use the SAEC 506 tonearm straigth ceramic headshell, no offset. Was aligned " a la VIV " and the result was that sounds very good but after a couple of hours i change it and mount it in the 506 and then in the 8000 again and even that sounds good what I detected was a " trouble " with the tonal balance that I try to fix it but with out success. The cartridge return to the 506. I don’t own those SAEC arms that are beautiful made with very high quality bu overall are bad performers ( no pun intented. ) In many threads many times I posted that: differences between any price level room/system quality level performanc e belongs to its higher or lower kind of distortions, so is clear for me what you stated. From some time now my common sense takes my audio decisions and if something is wrong as the VIV I don't care that could sounds good I don't want it. I already posted: why should I have something that I already know is wrong?. R. |
Dear @melm : " the ultimate test is your ears and not some measurement. "
That depends on the kind of sound you want to listen: the one you " like it " even if is wrong or the one that’s rigth and like it.
Almost always when distortions goes a little higher we like it because we are listening to something different to what for 20-30 years we are accustom to and we really don’t care if distortions levels are higher because we are discovering a " new " kind of sound. Normally those higher distortions comes as atransparent or very vivid at HF and as if those frequencies have no limit. There are other characteristics about.
In my case if my common sense says something is wrong then I don’t need to herad it: why should I if its wrong?useless but to each his own. The reality is that those happy owners are wrong but as I said just don’t care because what they listen in their system just like it the more. Such is life but the really critical issue with all those owners is not that they like it listened sound but that they can't be aware or discern on those higher distortions and that could says that they really have not a tests proccess about and just don't know what to look for or even if some of them can discern on the higher distortions levels and as I said just don't care maybe because they already spend their money on it.
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |