Discuss The Viv Lab Rigid Arm

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.)

Raul, do you have any data, besides the capacity to measure TAE, which is obviously greater for an underhung tonearm than for a conventional pivoted tonearm? What measurable data correlate with distortion of the perceived information we can get from an LP to the degree that the information encoded has the potential to result in the presentation of real instruments in space?

What Dave said.

Also, the supposed purpose of the decoupled headshell on the RS Labs is largely defeated by its wiring, which impedes free motion about the horizontal pivot of the headshell. (Here I’m referring to the rearward decoupling of its headshell. Dave is talking about the flat surface to which the cartridge mounts, which also moves in the horizontal plane.) I’m not saying this is good or bad. The RS headshell can actually be purchased separately. Couples to any conventional tonearm.

Again, I’d prefer to compare underhung tonearms to conventional pivoted overhung tonearms. And my thought is that the more linear change in skating force from outer to inner grooves may be an advantage to underhang. Also zero headshell offset may be another. I’m just trying to understand why SQ is good, and I mean audible distortion is low.

Raul, I apologize; the technical explanation for the underhung tonearm on the GT5000 is to be found on the "What Hi-Fi" review of the whole turntable, where the reviewer asked the Yamaha engineers for their explanation. He then had to translate the response from the original Japanese:

I thought I should ask Yamaha about its rationale for the tonearm length and the lack of anti-skating, and received a reply from no less a personage than Kiyohiko Goto, Chief Engineer at Yamaha Japan’s AV Division.

Regarding the tracking error he says: “A short straight arm has excellent tracking performance because the inside force is generated at the point of contact between a stylus tip and groove of vinyl and is always variable with the variate of the music groove. In the case of a short straight arm, its null point (= balanced point) is at the middle of the grooved area (so) the maximum tracking error is 10 degrees at innermost and outermost grooves. The distortion caused by this small error angle is inaudible because it is lower than both the tracing distortion and the residual noise. Furthermore, tracking error appears as phase shift between the left and right channels, and even at its maximum (10 degree) error the phase shift that results would be the same as caused by a difference in the distance from the left and right speakers to the listener of only 2mm. This also does not cause any problem for sound.”

As for the lack of anti-skating, he says: “A short straight arm does not require anti-skating because [at maximum error angle] if the vertical tracking force is 2g, the frictional coefficient is 0.3, and so the inside force (outside force) will be approx. 0.1g. In the case of a conventional offset arm with a maximum tracking error of 2 degrees, the inside force will be approx. 0.02g so the difference of the max inside force between a short arm and an offset type will be 0.08g at the maximum, thus the difference in force is very small.”

“On the other hand, when anti-skating is employed, because it applies a constant force it never cancels the inside force which constantly changes as its follows the music signal. The constant differences between the variable inside force at the stylus tip and the constant force by the anti-skating adversely affects the cantilever, hence the tracking performance is not stable. In a short straight arm the tracking performance following (the) music groove is excellent because the variable difference of force between the stylus tip and tonearm (cartridge) is not generated.

In my opinion, the real reason there is no anti-skate device is because AS would have to reverse direction by 180 degrees, before vs after the stylus gets passed the single null point achieved with any underhung tonearm. That would be difficult to manage. Whether AS per se is harmful for the reasons stated by the Yamaha engineer is a matter for debate. Whether distortion due to TAE is lower in magnitude than both tracing distortion and residual noise is an interesting claim that I am not equipped to critique. The bold type is mine in order to highlight that controversial claim. If the claim is valid, perhaps that explains why I hear no problem that I can relate to the extreme TAE, with my RS Labs RS-A1. In fact, the character of its sound across the surface of an LP, from outer to inner grooves seems more constantly the same than with conventional pivoted tonearms. This is only an opinion based on listening and with no measured data, of course.

Raul, Can you get it through your head that I am not claiming superiority for underhung tonearms?  I have written this many times.  I am only advocating an open minded approach to novel ideas, such as the idea of an underhung tonearm.  And in fact, how DO you know that a pivoted, overhung tonearm with headshell offset is the best option for pivoted tonearm design, besides linear tracking, unless you at least entertain other designs?  Have you auditioned the Viv or any other underhung tonearm?  Actually if you go to the Yamaha GT5000 website, you can find there a decent scientific justification for the underhung tonearm on that turntable, albeit I take issue with some of the points made there.

The Viv and its unique design qualities have nothing whatever to do with the Schroeder or Reed pivoted tangential trackers. Why do you constantly choose to compare the Viv to those specialty items? It’s more interesting and on point to compare the Viv and any other underhung tonearms to conventional overhung pivoted tonearms. I take it as a given that the Reed and Schroeder are likely to outperform the Viv, but the former two are very expensive. And a listening test would be most informative. Results might surprise all of us.

Booth, Not sure what you mean.  A spherical tip still generates a skating force, if that is what you're suggesting.

Mijo, I am talking about underhung tonearms as a separate subject relative to the Viv tonearm.  Whether the GT5000 is totally to your liking or not is not the point, but I did notice that the tonearm design on the GT5000 does have the technical flaws you mention.  As previously discussed, the placing of the pivot at the level of the LP surface, or lack thereof in this case, has relevance only with warped LPs.  To which you may reply all LPs are warped to one degree or another.  To which I would reply that really tiny or minimal warps are also really tiny and minimal problems in terms of altering VTF.  Anyway, neither of us is going to buy the whole turntable just to get an underhung tonearm.  All that said, I would be very curious to hear the GT5000 in a good system.

Raul, when you align an OVERhung tonearm and set headshell offset angle to zero, as you did out of necessity, that is the worst possible scenario, so it’s no wonder the SQ was poor. For an overhung tonearm, there can be no null points on the surface of an LP unless the headshell is offset at an angle, as determined from any of the standard algorithms. You can prove this with reference to the Pythagorean Theorem that we all learned in high school. That situation is not comparable to using an UNDERhung tonearm and zero headshell offset angle. I seem to be coming off as a defender of the Viv; I am not necessarily taking that position. I only have concluded there may be some good things about underhang and zero headshell offset and the resulting pattern of the skating force. I am urging an open mind. Even the "distortions" that you consistently preach against may be worse with the standard pivoted tonearms than with an underhung tonearm assuming the latter is properly set up. I only wish there was an underhung tonearm that does not also have other unusual features. For example, my RS Labs has many issues that may affect its SQ and have nothing to do with its being underhung (raised unipivot way above the LP surface, dangling counterweight that is free to swing back and forth, decoupled headshell). The Viv has its pivot floating in an oil bath and an arm wand that looks prone to resonate, albeit the oil bath might provide some damping. I have never heard the Viv, but I can report that despite its craziness, the RS Labs can sound very colorless.

Yamaha has recently introduced a new turntable, built to look like the GT2000 but with belt drive, I think. It comes standard with an underhung tonearm with a zero offset headshell. From photos, this appears to be a nicely built tonearm that is otherwise in keeping with modern concepts of tonearm design (i.e., lacking other features of questionable merit). If Yamaha would market that tonearm as a separate product, I would be most interested,

By the way, Neon, your fears of using the MC2000 in your DV tonearm are groundless.  I've mounted the MC2000 in my DV505, and the results were excellent.  Right now, it is mounted on my Triplanar, but not because I was unhappy with the DV505. 

I don’t disagree with Atma; the physics that suggest you need to tightly couple the tonearm pivot to the TT bearing is inescapable. However, there are many other "rules" that govern modern tonearm design, any one or several of which might be violated if one were to do a close analysis of any single design. The question then is what is the order of importance of these rules with respect to ultimate sound quality with a reasonable variety of cartridges. And what are the negative consequences of violating one or more of those principles? I think you then have to listen to the tonearm in action to determine its goodness. I have already stated that I wonder about the floating bearing (is the pivot well fixed in space? That’s another imperative.) and the skinny undamped arm wand (Will it resonate?) Yet the Viv float has been reviewed many times, and I don’t know of any reviews that were less than enthusiastic. We have already heard from two users of the Viv that they like it quite a bit. So it may be a "bad design", but it sounds good to most who have auditioned it. Certainly one does not want to dismiss such a product out of hand.

I might add that the Viv has a weighted base, and it is designed to be placed on the surface of the plinth, adjacent to the platter.  Thus it IS to some degree physically coupled to the bearing, to the degree that the plinth and bearing are tightly coupled, and the plinth will move if the bearing is disturbed.  So maybe the coupling between arm and bearing are tight "enough".

The RS Labs is the same in that regard: it is not rigidly coupled to the bearing. I agree that’s another rule breaker. Now we have to listen to the Viv. In all the other respects in which underhung tonearms like these two are rule breakers, it is possible that the rules that they break ( minimize tracking angle error, etc) are themselves not as crucial to best performance as we have been taught to believe. I agree, the notion of coupling of the pivot to the bearing is a design element I would rather not forgo. But even there, there are many who use outboard arm pods with overhung tonearms, and there are several turntable/tonearm combinations that pay little attention to that coupling. We have gone over that idea more than enough by now.

Clearthinker, once in a while you don’t live up to your chosen moniker. But disregarding clarity of your thinking, have you found a single negative review of the Viv?

"Skating force may not be an important factor in tracking error."

To unpack your statement a little bit, skating force is in part directly proportional to tracking angle error. The term "in part" enters into it if you are using an offset headshell. With no headshell offset angle, then skating force is directly proportional to tracking angle error. Think about it.

Really, why would we care about Ikeda-san’s opinion of the Viv? Can’t we form our own opinions by listening to it? He could tell us about its technical "shortcomings", to the degree the design differs from that of any conventional overhung tonearm with a headshell offset angle, but those are obvious.

Why does exotic audio gear cost so much these days?  Probably because the sellers think enough of us will pay their prices to justify their costs and need for profit.  But this has nothing to do with good or bad performance, in my opinion.

I would have imagined it might outperform the 3012R. The 9-incher in CF would be my choice too. Last time I was in Tokyo, prices there were about 60% of US prices. Still, more than $3K for the above version.

I see that the usual "open-minded" suspects are only too eager to support the status quo in favor of a very interesting departure. First, the Viv does not have "zero" overhang; it is UNDER hung; designed so the stylus tip is a certain distance short of the center of the spindle, and there is a reason for this. By being underhung, the single null point can be set to occur in the middle of the LP surface, or wherever one decides is optimal. Second,the only parameter that can be calculated "mathematically" is tracking angle error, and both Jason and Mijo are obviously correct in stating that the Viv will exhibit much more tracking angle error than a conventional overhung tonearm (but see below). Skating force: the Viv and other underhung tonearms of which there are very few will exhibit zero skating force at its single null point, unlike overhung tonearms with headshell offset, which never exhibit zero skating force, because even at their two achievable null points, there will still be skating force due to the headshell offset angle. Further, the skating force vector generated by the Viv will be a more or less straight line, starting with a force toward the spindle and diminishing to zero as it crosses the single null point and then changing direction as the stylus moves beyond the null point, when the force vector points toward the rim of the LP. (This is why you won’t see an underhung tonearm with an anti-skate device; it would have to change the direction of the pull by 180 degrees at exactly the right moment.) The skating force of an underhung tonearm follows a smooth nearly linear curve if plotted to show magnitude and direction. Overhung tonearms with headshell offset have a constant, constantly changing skating force vector (and tracking angle error), always pulling the stylus toward the spindle but by wildly different magnitudes across the surface of the LP. Is one more audible than the other? I have no idea, but I do know that my wierdly designed underhung tonearm, the RS Labs RS-A1 sounds very good, and if I had to characterize the SQ, I would say it sounds closer to a master tape than do conventional tonearms. Maybe this indicates that zero tracking angle error is not the Holy Grail some claim it to be. The Viv has some other design aspects that I wonder about, like the pivot floating in an oil bath and like the arm wand which looks prone to resonate. I also think it's a bit overpriced in the US market, much less costly in Japan. But it has received many accolades from reviewers who are not stupid. And then too, I admire my RS Labs for its SQ, although the only thing it has in common with the Viv is its underhung-ness.

One wonders what sort of record player Rabinow et all were contemplating when they did their math in the 1930s. Half the world was still using wind-up Victrolas in that era, and no one had stereo of course. Same goes for the sainted Baerwald and Lofgren, who published their papers in 1940, 41.