Dover, a light bulb went on in my head. I think I now understand what you mean, but it still seems to be the equivalent of shortening the distance from stylus to spindle, which only moves the single null point closer to the spindle. Still underhung.
|
With respect to the pivot and spindle, you can’t have both underhang and overhang at the same time.
I’m actually in Tokyo and contemplating the purchase of a Viv just to spite my dear friends Raul and Mijostyn. Their rigidity should not astonish me by now, but it does. In 1940 a couple of mainly German mathematicians published their solutions solely aimed at minimizing TAE at all costs and without any way of knowing what the negative consequences might be, insofar as all styli were literally “needles”, all recordings were mono, and the era of the Victrola for most listeners was still very much alive. For those gentlemen the achievement was solving a problem in geometry using math. Yet one version or another of their solutions was religiously adopted by companies that made tonearms from the end of WW2 to the present. I use the word “religiously “ on purpose. Is stylus overhang and headshell offset the audio equivalent of the 10 Commandments? I think that dogma is just as subject to question as is the idea of the underhung tonearm with zero headshell offset. What’s also puzzling is that no reviewer has a handle on the way in which the two approaches differ in their consequences. I too wish the Viv were more conventional in ways other than its geometry, and that’s the only reason I haven’t bought one, so far.
|
Dover, as you know, the single null point will lie on the radius of the LP and hopefully somewhere on the playing surface. I’ve been trying to visualize the setup you propose. Seems to me if you move the pivot forward of the null point but still short of the spindle ( pivot to spindle distance still greater than pivot to stylus) you just change the location of the single null. As soon as pivot to spindle = pivot to stylus, you’ll have no null point. And when pivot to stylus is greater than P2S, also no null point. I hope I’ve understood you correctly.
|
Yes, everyone knows what you think. Does your disdain apply to the very idea of an underhung tonearm or only to the Viv Float, which is a bit eccentric in other ways? I wish someone would market an underhung tonearm that is otherwise conventional. The only one I know of requires you to buy the Yamaha GT5000 turntable, complete with its underhung tonearm. If Yamaha were to market that arm as a separate entity, I would be interested. And I am also interested in the Viv.
I actually don’t think you could mount a cartridge on a paper straw, whether the straw was overhung or underhung.
|
Less than zero overhang. Underhang.
|
Raul, I think you are talking about making a calculation and Dave is talking about geometry. The point is that in order for any pivoted tonearm to produce two null points on the playing surface of an LP, there MUST be overhang AND the headshell MUST be offset at an angle to the arm wand. You need both conditions. Simple and true.
|
I like and respect PL of SS, but I would not value his opinion of underhung tonearms any more than I value the opinion of any other smart vinylphile. Then, regardless of what any such qualified individual would opine, I would still want to take a few months to listen in my own home system using a variety of suitable cartridges before forming my own opinion.
|
Dover, perhaps to add to what Intact wrote, or not, if you move the pivot forward so the tonearm is not underhung but becomes either overhung or even set to hit the center of the spindle (I guess we can call this "un-hung" or neutral hung), then you can have no null points at all (without headshell offset). Because at the null point, the tonearm from pivot to stylus tip can be thought of as one side of a right angle triangle, let’s call that side A. The distance from the stylus tip to the center of the spindle is then side B of a right angle triangle, and the distance from the pivot point to the center of the spindle is side C, or the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle. Pythagorean Theorem tells us that for a right angle triangle, C-squared = A-squared + B-squared. But in the overhang condition, side A is greater than side C. So tangency is impossible without headshell offset. The un-hung situation cannot work either, where A = C.
|
rsf, In my opinion, the pivot point should be fixed in space. I do not view Roy Gregory's report that you cite as a good thing.
Dover, I have to think about this some more, but off the top of my head, I do not think it is possible to set up an underhung tonearm so as to achieve two null points on the surface of an LP, no matter what you do with the headshell offset angle. Also, I disagree with the Viv website, if they say that the combination of zero headshell offset angle and underhung-ness has the net effect per se of reducing the skating force. What it does do is create a smoother more linear transition in the magnitude of the skating force as the stylus traverses the LP surface. Maybe this factor makes the high TAE at extremes of travel more benign than it would be in a conventional pivoted tonearm. Just guessing.
|
Raul, I get your position vis a vis tube vs transistor. You are entitled to it. But you cannot seriously be thinking that the idea of an underhung tonearm is or ever was foisted upon us by the evil "AHEE", can you? I hope not. It's quite the opposite, as I think you know. Not to mention that in the early days of SS, transistors were promoted heavily by the AHEE, as against the then prevalent tube devices, just because of the lower HD measurements, never mind that very low HD was achieved at the expense of tons of NFB. It was only after about 10 years into the SS era that tubes made a comeback, partly because of Harry Pearson and TAS and partly because of Bill Johnson and his Audio Research. Yes, I guess you could say that HP and TAS would come to personify the apocryphal AHEE, in the eyes of some. Anyway, I think we have reached a point where we now have superb devices that use tubes and equally superb devices that use transistors. There's room for both in the present audio universe.
|
It’s really impossible to have a calm friendly open minded discussion of anything remotely controversial on this Forum. Particularly since so few of us have hands on familiarity with the subject device. I vote to quit trying.
|
Pindac, Speaking for myself only, and possibly for some others, I do not view this discussion as a debate where there could ever be a true "winner". I champion the idea of an underhung tonearm as a novel idea that deserves some thought and attention. I have never heard a Viv Float, so I have no strong convictions about the performance of that particular product, but I have heard an RS Labs RS-A1 tonearm, because I own one. The fact that it does so many things directly against convention (besides the fact it's underhung) and yet still sounds very good first started me thinking whether we should question some of our tonearm gospels. And I am still at that point.
|
Theo, how’s your Verdier these days? Good to have you hanging on my every word.
|
Back decades when I first saw that classic (vase/face) Rohrschach image, my first thought was "dessert dish", not vase. Shows where my mind was at. Was thinking of a hot fudge sundae.
|
Actually most people who look at a Rohrschach will say it’s either a vase or two people nose to nose. This is true for all ink blots.
|
Mijostyn, When you straightened the headshell, did you also change P2S, so the Schroeder was converted to underhang the spindle? By 15 to 20mm, so you get the single null point about where Dave recommends?
|
Pindac, I’m sure you know this, but because you did not mention it, I hope your underhung tonearm will be built with zero headshell offset angle.
Dave, in your aural experience reported above were you listening to an RS-A1, or what? Also, what is “arbitrary distortion”? Could it also be called “subjective distortion “? Thx.
|
Do you detect a greater uniformity of any colorations, from lead in to lead out grooves? That's what I thought I heard with the RS Labs, less in degree and fewer variations in sonic character, compared to a typical overhung tonearm, as it traverses an LP. Which made it sound more like a good R2R playback. (That's my best metaphor for it.) This effect was not probably as great as may come across in my writing about it, due to the fact that we must use words to describe it.
|
How did you create an underhung Schroeder? Does it have zero headshell offset too?
|
Raul, I advise you to listen to an underhung tonearm and consider that a mathematical solution to minimize TAE at all costs put forward in 1940 might not be the last word in 2023. That’s what I intend to do before forming a definitive opinion. Based on the RS LABS, I think you’re rushing to judgement. Also realize that your and Mijostyn’s position could be turned on its ear: you may be used to certain distortions created by overhung tonearms that you “like”.
|
Mijo, I get what you’re trying to say about the “sound” of a tonearm, but what’s your reference for sounding like “nothing”? Every arm is made of something. How can something sound like nothing?
I keep thinking of George Costanza explaining to NBC execs that “Seinfeld” was about “nothing”.
|
For me, CF does not necessarily outperform stainless or aluminum or some other metal for use as an arm wand. I’d have to hear both versions. In general I have not been fond of CF in audio, except as headshell material. I do not care for the few CF tonearms I’ve heard, e.g., the Well Tempered.
|
Why do you suggest that “something happened” to the Viv with CF arm wand? So far as I know, it’s still available, CF being an option vs the standard metal wand.
|
|
Maxson, First, thanks for your response. To your direct observation, does azimuth remain stable over the course of traversing an LP during play? The top surface of the headshell on a Well Tempered Reference tonearm, for example, visibly rolls over toward the spindle as it moves from outer to inner grooves.
|
All I know is that the RS LABS RSA1 tonearm violates every “commandment” of modern design:
underhung
not firmly anchored to plinth
cartridge DEcoupled from arm wand
unipivot
pivot is elevated above both cartridge and counterweight
CW dangles in space, free to swing due to LP eccentricity
And yet it works. By comparison, the Viv makes much more overall sense. Raul makes a fair point about the Viv website. There are many questionable claims on that website. You should see the RS labs owners manual. It is laughable. But that does not have anything to do with the results.
|
What Dave just said about TAE, and what I was trying to say early on in this thread.
|
Your motivations in general are worthy, but your judgement of what is a scam and what is merely an alternative approach that has merits and demerits is poor in this instance, because your mind is closed. And by the way, your argumens against underhung tonearms, leaving aside the specifics of the Viv, are mostly about Euclidean geometry, not Newtonian physics.
|
If the Viv bearing is “floating“ as you say, I would not like it either. I mentioned this very early on in this thread. Their literature is unclear. Can one of the owners and users of the Viv tonearm comment about whether the pivot point is fixed in space and not floating and also not a Uni pivot? That would be helpful to me anyway. but the main subject of our discussion has been underhung tonearms in general versus overhung tonearms, and the effect of TAE on sound quality.
|
Mijostyn, You wrote, "You have to be kidding me Lew. After all I have said about measurement microphones, digital signal processing, and crazy microscopes? I measure everything that affects the performance of my system. If you don’t you are out to sea without a compass." And then in a later post you intimated I must be getting senile because I "forgot" you own the above gear. I forgot nothing; none of that stuff is useful for measuring IM or Harmonic or other kinds of distortion, which is what I specified in my prior statement. What you measure is frequency response curves (or rather your hoping for a flat line). All I am saying is that you (and me too) don’t really know how our gear is performing in our home systems, with regard to that kind of analysis of distortion in the electrical sense of the word.
Earlier also you fretted that the TAE created with an underhung tonearm will cause phase anomalies. What about the phase anomalies you and I happily live with, caused by dipole speakers where the rear radiation is 180 degrees out of phase with the front? What about phase anomalies possibly generated by the very steep slope hi- and low pass filters you told me you use at the crossover point between your subwoofers and your Sound Lab panels? (I believe you mentioned 80db/octave, done in the digital domain.) And finally, phase differences between the two channels, one vs the other, such as that theoretically caused by high TAE in a tonearm, ought to be much less audible or troublesome to the listener, compared to phase anomalies within one channel, because the content of the L vs the R channel signals is always different anyway. The brain is taking in two complementary but distinct sonic signatures and melding them into a stereo image. This is also not to mention that studio recordings were seldom done in such a way as to preserve phase, top to bottom, anyway. So I would blow off phase anomalies as a major "problem" arising from TAE.
One of the Viv owners who commented in this thread, pointed out that the base of the tonearm is drilled out such that it can in fact be anchored to a plinth. Even if one doesn’t use those mounting points, the Viv sits on an arm board which is part of the plinth and is at least tenuously moving in unison with any perturbation to the bearing/spindle/platter assembly. So, worst case scenario, the coupling would be superior to using an outboard arm pod. (No offense meant to anyone who uses an outboard pod; I sure don’t want to open that can of worms again.) If it were me, I would bolt the base to the arm board and forgeddaboudit.
|
Dave, did you really intentionally direct that last post to me? So far as I know we are on the same side. And I fully agree with your sentiments about not being afraid to try new things. Until you joined the fray, I was the only one defending the possibility that the Viv tonearm might be any good, outside of all of those persons who own one and use it. All of those guys seem to like the tonearm. So what’s with the last post? I totally agree with your sentiments. My only point was that the reason perhaps not many purchase the very longest versions of the Viv tonearm may have more to do with fitting the tonearm to a turntable than zeal or lack of zeal for minimizing TAE.
|
Dave, when you consider the fact that the Viv is supposed to be underhung by 17 mm, as you point out, I think one very inhibiting factor about buying the longer versions is that 99% of plinths will not accommodate such a long tonearm that in addition has to be underhung by 17 mm. Your mounting board would be in the next room. The base of a 14 inch Viv, which I believe is available, would be nearly 15 inches away from the spindle. It would be difficult to achieve rigid coupling in that situation.
|
Mijo, do you also have an audio signal generator, a distortion analyzer, a high end oscilloscope, test LPs for IM and HD produced by cartridges, and etc., and is every claim you make here substantiated by hard data using valid controls? If so, I apologize.
The stuff you mentioned is mostly to allow control on the input side. You didn’t mention how you might collect and use data on the output side. Not that there’s anything wrong with using your ears.
|
"IOW if the measurements are done properly they don't lie." What is in dispute even among objectivists (and I don't like the word because it ignores that we are left to make subjective judgements even when we have objective data) is the definition of "properly", and who says that measurement X (or Y or Z) correlates with the sound of live music in a real space? Best we can hope for is a kind of consensus that evolves over time.
|
I would try Yodibashi Camera or Hifido, as vendors. Yodibashi is an amazing electronics department store, the likes of which do not exist in the USA. Problem might be that almost no salesperson speaks English. Hifido does have an export business and does speak English.
I liked and agree with almost everything that Raul wrote in his most recent post. Interestingly, I see nothing in there that suggests that one could not gain a great deal of pleasure from a Viv tonearm or that a Viv tonearm or some other underhung tonearm might work better in general than a good overhung tonearm. This thread has devolved into an age old argument between people who go by measurements (or believe they do) and people who go by sensory input, when it comes to judging audio gear. It’s an old argument, and it will never end. In this instance, I do not see a reason for acrimony. We are all after the same thing. I am only urging an open mind. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that neither Raul nor Mijostyn is actually making measurements of his audio gear and the signal that comes out of them. They are most likely going by data supplied by manufacturers and their own considerable funds of knowledge about electronics and distortion. But history is replete with instances where measurements lie. In the early days of solid-state amplification, we had amplifiers that measured harmonic distortion in the order of .000001%. The problem was that when people listened to them, it was obvious that they sounded at least not so good if not also terrible. And this was in comparison to tube amplifiers of those days that produced much more harmonic distortion and had much more limited bandwidth, etc, by actual measurement, but were unmistakably preferable for listening purposes. (Probably not everyone agrees, but consider the Phase Linear 700 amplifier.) So I urge you not to be a slave to one particular parameter, TAE in this case. Just listen. Now Raul's and Mijostyn's listening is evidently of a superior quality to the rest of us. And to some degree this can be true, because they are both very experienced audiophiles (never mind about the definition of an audiophile) , and over many years, they have trained their ears to listen for what they perceive to be a sound that most represents reality. Actually this sort of "training" is a natural process for the few of us who first of all attend a lot of live music events in concert halls and clubs and second of all own elaborate home music reproduction systems. The brain is constantly comparing the two kinds of experience, and if you care enough you want to bring the real one into your home. But I urge both of them to take a look at themselves and realize that in the end they are listening for something they like, so there's nothing wrongheaded about the "I like it" approach, even when others disagree. (Ten years later, anyone's "I like it" might be a much better informed opinion than it is today, if you continue to develop your listening acumen and your system.) One could argue whether either Raul or Mijo has superior judgement based on listening skills, but they are just like the rest of us, some of whom are more canny than others because of putting in the work. Even experienced audio professionals, and I know a few, guys who can and do measure with instruments, because they have to make a living selling good sounding stuff, are nevertheless striving to figure out what sorts of measurement actually correlate with that sense of verisimilitude that any good and eager audiophile is seeking.
|
Neon, you might try buying a Viv tonearm by mail order from Tokyo. The exchange rate between the US dollar and the yen is at an all time high, meaning with one dollar you can now buy more than ¥140. Our son has lived in Tokyo since around 2008, and this is the most favorable exchange rate I have ever seen. in fact, we recently sent him some money to buy an apartment in Tokyo. There are very reputable dealers in Tokyo who may be willing to send you an arm, and I might add the prices in Tokyo last time I was there were 30 to 40% less for Viv, compared to the US retail prices. One of my only reservations about buying a Viv, since it is a bit of an unknown quantity, is the very high cost that puts it at a price level similar to very fine overhung tonearms that I would normally avoid due to cost. Not so in Tokyo.
|
Duh… the Viv arm most certainly DOES generate a skating force, except for the instant when TAE = 0. Overhung tonearms generate a skating force even at the two null points (TAE= 0), because of headshell offset.
Underhung tonearms are the antithesis of a Rube Goldberg device. You and some others dislike the idea because it seems too simple.
|
I was driven to this hobby purely by my twin loves for music especially jazz and gadgets of any kind. My mother was an opera singer, so I was exposed to classical music and opera nearly from birth. I remember watching my father assemble a speaker from a kit he purchased at either RadioShack or from Heath. It had a single coaxial Altec Lansing driver. This was purely for my mother to be able to listen to opera. Then I discovered Miles Davis when I was 15. It is unwise to pigeon hole people as only one thing or another. Somewhere in there I was smitten with sports cars. Like Andre Gide said, “please do not understand me too quickly”.
|
Referring to yourself in the third person is a bad sign. Why didn’t you just announce your superiority from the get-go? Would have curtailed the needless debates. This site might then have been renamed “Clearthinker Forum”.
|
Neon, I would check with Expert Stylus in the UK. They seem to source Ortofon related parts , or suitable replacements. I gather you think the OEM cantilever is not salvageable.
|
Neon, Based on the post by J Carr in which he discussed various cantilever materials and also expressed the opinion that in retipping or restoring a cartridge, one might be best off sticking to the original chosen cantilever material, on the premise that the cartridge was designed and voiced with that material, I would choose to stick with aluminum if replacing the cantilever on an MC2000. On the same grounds, better yet would be to re-tip the original aluminum cantilever. Now I do respect Raul's opinions, and he did say that he likes the boron cantilever on his MC2000, or what once was his MC2000. But we also know what Raul and Mijo think about the phrase "I like it" when other people use it.
|
Neon, as I mentioned to you earlier, you need not worry about effective mass with either the DV505 or the Viv, but it seems you do enjoy the fretting. I run my MC2000 in my Triplanar with no problems at all . Of course, that judgement is made by my ear; I haven’t measured the resonant frequency. In my opinion, the commonly used equation for calculating resonant frequency based on cartridge compliance and tonearm effective mass can only get you a ballpark figure for Fr. This is because none of us know the actual effective mass of our tonearms, exactly, and we do not know the compliance of one particular sample of a cartridge. I am convinced that manufacturing tolerances are such that the rigid compliance number usually supplied is only that of an average sample. Furthermore, once a cartridge has aged, whether in use or sitting on a shelf, it is quite likely that the compliance has changed from day one of its life. The Triplanar is said to have an effective mass of about 11 g. That number is a little more reliable than most, because the Triplanar has a non-detachable headshell. Once you mix and match tonearms with headshells, it is very easy to lose track of the correct tonearm effective mass. Your Dyna vector DV505 has a remarkably low effective mass in the vertical plane which is well suited to the MC2000. I know you are worried about effective mass in the horizontal plane. You shouldn’t be. I also ran the MC 2000 in my DV505 for several months. The performance was equally good to that of the Triplanar. In fact, the very low bass response might have been more articulate in the DV 505.
|
Mijostyn, are you paying attention? Zenith. Most likely none of your cartridges is properly aligned due to zenith errors. Which means you’re in no position to preach about TAE. The ancient alignment gods, Lofgren and Baerwald, didn’t have to think about zenith because all styli were conical in 1940, not to mention most turntables were wind-up powered and depended upon acoustic amplification.
|
So I suppose that the traditionalists all use 12-inch tonearms, to minimize TAE as much as possible with a pivoted tonearm, and that they are aware of the effect of zenith errors on perfect alignment. Which is to say that zenith errors, which are tolerated by the manufacturers up to +/-5 degrees, if ignored, will totally destroy any attempt at perfect alignment, using any of the traditional algorithms. Unless you have accounted for that error, you are totally kidding yourself if you think you know your cartridge is perfectly aligned.
|
Raul, You wrote, "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°..." That’s just not true at all. Only at the extremes of the arc the tonearm makes across the surface of the LP would the TAE reach its max error of 10 degrees. And please may I remind you for the second time that the "10 degrees" data point comes from the Yamaha engineer in reference to the Yamaha underhung tonearm mounted on their GT5000. For the Viv or any other underhung tonearm, the TAE would be zero at the single null point, which you can choose to place anywhere on the playing surface when you choose where to mount the tonearm. As the arm moves toward its single null point, TAE is gradually and pretty near linearly decreasing from its max at the outermost grooves to zero. Once the stylus moves past the null point, then TAE gradually increases to whatever its max value (now in negative degrees, because the angle is opposite in direction) at the run-out groove. I don’t recommend it, but I think the Viv comes in assorted lengths out to at least 11 inches and maybe to 14 inches, where the max TAE values would be way lower than 10 degrees. So if TAE is such a problem, one might consider the longer versions.
Earlier, I asked you to cite the reference you quoted in your post describing the logic of conventional tonearm geometry. Can you do that, please? If so, thanks a lot for your effort in doing that research.
Dogberry, TAE is not per se a "distortion". It’s a geometrical error; we know that distortion arises therefrom, but how much and of what quality and what consequence to our SQ, that is up for debate. For example, if we perseverate over TAE, then what can we also do about errors in zenith. A stylus that is not exactly symmetrically mounted on the cantilever can add up to +/-5% to TAE and can also eliminate null points, unless one accounts for it.
|
Alan60, I share your sentiments, but you wrote, to Raul and Mijo, "please have an objective listen to a Viv Labs and put all the theories, equations etc to one side."
I am afraid there is no such thing as an "objective listen". That's the bugaboo of all the audio topics we discuss here and anywhere else.
|
Raul, thank you for the long post in which you quoted an analysis of the classical tonearm geometry and the reasons for it. Now would you be so kind as to post the source of the technical section that you seem to have cut and pasted into the audiogon forum website? I would like to access it, because it frequently refers to data and figures which of necessity are not included in your post. The mathematics are very hard to follow without access to the supportive data. I am very interested to read the article in detail. Thanks a lot.
|
Pindac, as the length of an underhung tonearm is very flexible, in that you can choose almost any length you want within reason, I suspect that you would not have to modify an existing tonearm board or plinth in order to mount an underhung tonearm of your own creation. It would actually be very simple. You do not have to think rigidly in terms of 9 inch, 10.5 inch, 12 inch lengths. Nor do you have to think rigidly in terms of pivot to spindle distance, since an underhung tonearm does not reach to the spindle in the first place . For example, the recommendation for the Viv tonearm is to mount it such that the stylus tip is 17.5 mm short of reaching the spindle.
|
Raul, just to be accurate, 10 degrees TAE comes from Yamaha. And it applies to the extreme angle of the error their tonearm ever achieves. Obviously at the null point, the TAE is zero. I think the Yamaha is 7 inches. For underhung tonearms, max TAE goes down as length increases. Thus for a 9 inch Viv, the max TAE would be lower. When I first discerned that the RS LABS sounds so surprisingly good , despite the many weird aspects of its design, even disregarding it’s underhung-ness, it started me wondering whether TAE is so important to SQ. You yourself are no big fan of LT tonearms so far as I know, and you are on record for not liking 12 inch overhung tonearms which have less TAE than 9 inchers. So where is the evidence that minimal TAE is crucial?
|
Mijo, what “law of physics “ is violated by an underhung tonearm? ( I won’t specify the RS Labs or the Viv, just the principle of an underhung tonearm with zero headshell offset angle.)
|
