I am trying to do my due diligence about this arm. I am just having a hard time getting my head around this idea of zero overhang and no offset. Does this arm really work the way it is reported to do?
I'm not looking for a the " perfect " tonearm. The best way that in the begin the cartridgecan pick up as much recorded information from the groove modulations is that the stylus tip stays centered along the LP surface grooved and taking in count that premise/main target the LT is the best solution but not " perfect " and for me the second best are the pivot tonearm with off-set angle using the Löfgreen alignments.
So, according to you all those different AS mechanism used by tonearm designers do not helps in any way to that skating developed then all those designers are wrong.
What you like in your listen sessions has no matters because is a subjective opinion that proves nothing but that you like it.
Be a little objective and please give us the best tonearm over the LT that helps the cartridge to its stylus tip stays centered as I said. Easy for you but not for me. Any one?
It would seem to me that the skating force does much more to prevent the stylus from being “centered in the groove” than TAE. AS is all we have to counter skating but AS can only be correct at one or two moments of play, because it’s constant in magnitude and direction whereas skating is inconstant and variable in direction. Plus it’s applied near the pivot, whereas skating occurs at the stylus. This puts a twist force on the cantilever. But you know all this already.
As Lew points out, AS is set by the user at a constant magnitude.
Those who successfully opened the Youtube link I posted (the second one) will, I suspect, be surprised at the significant variability of stylus drag, and at times, its "violence". Trying to negate the skating force that this creates with a constant magnitude counter force at the other end of the arm would seem to me to be an exercise in futility. How much stylus misalignment and hence distortion, stylus drag causes, is perhaps the key question along with what these nasty forces are doing to the cartridge's inner workings.
Sorry again, this was my first post to Richard about that I deleted:
@richardkrebs : " AS is set by the user at a constant magnitude.."
Normally the tonearms designers design the AS mechanism to be not constant in magnitude but going from less to more as the cartridge moves inside and yes is only in one direction and away to be perfect, nothing is in the analog audio world where everything is full of trade-offs and each one of us have several trade-offs to choose in between, it’s way personal.
The issue is to stay nearer/truer to the recording. Now, I never seen specific measures on the tracking distortion levels of the skating against the tracking distortion levels of the off-set angle in pivot tonearms.
At least by measures we all know at each single groove the level tracking distortion through the Löfgreen alignments against nothing similar with the sckating issue.
I use what for me is the second best option to stay nearer/truer to the recording using pivot off-set angle tonearm trying to have some equilibrium with objectivity and at the same time subjectivity.
I already said to lewm ( he said I’m wrong about ) that knowing him through years of his posts that he will continues with arguments about because he has no objective answer/measured and proved whay he likes " something " as his VIV that has higher tracking distortions due that has zero off-set angle been a pivoted design. This is my take with him even that he is in total disagreement with me.
Today I’m totally satisfied under objective/subjective equilibrium with my choose of that second best alternative to achieve my target.
Other audiophiles have different targets and that’s all. At the end what overall plays a main role on each one of us is that can stay satisfied. I’m.
R.
" to negate the skating force .... "
In my case I don’t negate its existence and concecuences. I know that the that force makes a " presure " against the cantilever and the cantilever suspension what I never seen in slow motion ( as what I linked from youtube here. ) that the skating force really makes that the whole cantilever spin in to what holds the cantilever. One thing is to presure it and the other one makes to spin around. We have to remember that's not the only force down there and how ,it with the other developed ones. ( Remember cartridge compliance. Way important in this subject. )
@richardkrebs : " How much stylus misalignment and hence distortion, stylus drag causes, "
In any kind of tonearm/cartridge always exist the stylus friction distortion during playback.
At microscopic levels the stylus tip even has several small " jumps " due to that friction that’s is different along all the grooved LP surface depending the recording velocities in different surface positions. Here losted information that can’t pick-up and that’s part of the LP analog imperfections.
That theoretical misalignment you mentioned is different for each LP track sides and we can’t use it as a reference.
There are so many individual characteristics and parameters inside what we are discussing that for me the best I can do is to go with facts/measures that can gives me the best certainty ( that in any way is perfect but in theory helps to reach my targets ) and is what I did and do. Each one " imagination " and knowledge levels could take this dialogue to an endless finish line.
Just to note that Tom uses the term zenith and the term headshell offset angle as if they were synonymous. For me, and in all my comments above, the term Zenith is used to refer only to the angle of the mounting of the stylus tip in the cantilever in the horizontal plane and has nothing to do with headshell offset. Certainly head shell offset angle and zenith, as I use the term, are interrelated, but the difference in the definition is also important if you want to understand some of the points that I and dave slagle were trying to make. You can optimize the headshell offset angle for a particular geometry, but all is for naught, if the zenith angle of the stylus tip is not 90°, or such that the two contact patches of the stylus tip are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the cantilever.
The accuracy of Zenith is a difficult subject as numerous Cartridge users have Cantilever / Styli's in used that are a Pre-Assembled Part, provided as a Part from a supply chain to Cartridge producers.
The supply chain seeming conform to a particular level of QA, where a tolerance is allowed for in relation to the perpendicular setting of the Styli in the Cantilever.
It is only Threads such as this that informs Cart' owners, that there is the very strong possibility the Styli on a owned Cart' is from the offset off being put into service, one that has been compromised, or alternatively one that is not optimised for the Geometric alignment.
How many are willing to go to the additional measures to attempt to improve on this alignment, when known about ?
How many are convinced the time needed to be spent to improve on the alignment, will produce an end sound that audibly shows a discernable difference of betterment to the end sound.
What level of tolerances need to be in place between mechanical interfaces for the TT > Tonearm > Tonearm Headshell Connections, to exploit the condition of a correct / near correct Zenith Alignment being achieved.
I personally, I know the value of having Critical Mechanical Interfaces addressed to the tightest of tolerances between above three items, where two of the Tools in use, also have critical interfaces that are the lowest coefficients of friction.
It is these interfaces being optimised, in conjunction with Critical Geometry Alignment for a Cartridge, that really enables a Cart' to pop and express the Sweet Spot is met.
It is these interfaces being optimised, in conjunction with Critical Geometry Alignment for a Cartridge, that really enables a Cart' to reveal a change has occurred and the pop / expression of the Sweet-Spot being met, has changed to the point the real attraction once experienced has diminished.
I would be willing to take the 'Punt' on the notion, many many TT's in use, are used with Cart's that have a design intent to perform at a extremely high level. Where these Cart's are used on supporting ancillaries that are not mechanically optimised and are set up as a Geometrical Alignment that has not been given the attention to create a condition that is accurate as can be achieved.
In all cases, a TT>TA>Cart' are more than capable of producing an end sound that the end listener really enjoys. Begging the question exactly what is to be attained as a result of all the extra learning, disciplines put into practice and time spent.
Referencing an experience encountered yesterday, where I was a member of a Group familiar with a particular TT>TA >Cart' that has been set up using AnalogMagik Software. I made the comment that I had detected a slight change to the impression the end sound was making, where it had lost a little of its pop/sweet spot, it was the first time ever, I felt CD had got close to Parity as the impression being made. Certain Group members including the TT owner felt my comment was with merit.
The TT owner has already arranged for the AnalogMagik Software to be used on the TT once more, to learn more about the suspected loss of optimisation.
My own take on it, is that the loss of pop/sweet spot, has been no different a impact on the end sound, to the impression made during a before / after degauss comparison, or the impression certain Interconnect Cables can create as a result of comparing them, some sound they are less impressive, whilst another is the one selected as the go to, or withheld for a longer period of assessment.
If the AnalogMagik does show a Geometric Alignment is called for and the pop / sweet-spot is reinvigorated returning to a previously achieved condition. Even though this condition will be attractive to have, some might say very attractive to have. The real value is that to have such a condition being in place, is a great method to be used as a indicator for when the set up has crept from being optimised.
Personally I don't feel that the suggestion there was a creep away from the pop / sweet-spot having impeded the end sound in a way it was unattractive, the presentation of Tracks played was immensely enjoyed. In context the day was solely about meeting / enjoying friends company with a wonderful lunch served alfresco. The entertainment was available through Banter and the experiencing of New Design Prototypes of Equipment used with both Digital and Analogue Sources, New Speakers available in the UK, some familiar Tracks and a Selection of New Tracks
Certain individuals would be struggling with the idea, I was to make such a comment about enjoying a Vinyl replay that showed the tools used, had seemingly crept from a previous optimised set up. For some it would quite likely be interpreted as I am not an Audiophile for accepting anything but perfection when listening to a replay of recorded music. HOW MISERABLE IS THAT. life is way too short for such a pattern of thought to manifest.
Or blatantly refusing to learn something through experiencing as a result of receiving a demonstration. Strongly Suggesting math with a limited Calculus is the precursor to where a experience is to be sought.
Pindac, in your recent very long post, I am not quite sure what you wanted to say, but I take it that you believe the pleasure of good music enjoyed in the company of good friends is the highest goal of our hobby, and who could possibly disgree with that? And I see your point that this is true even if and when cartridge set-up is less than perfect. So maybe this leaves us with the question how much accuracy in cartridge set-up is "good enough". I have long characterized myself as an alignment nihilist; I certainly used and still use one of two good protractors (Feickert and Smartractor), but I gotta admit I did not sweat too much over exactitude. +/-0.5mm was good enough for me, if that. Now this business of zenith blows up all my earlier comfort with approximations. Dave and others have shown that if the stylus in your cartridge was mounted with an error of even 1 degree, and if you are ignorant of that defect or ignore it, then despite all your efforts at exact alignment, you may very well wind up with very large amounts of TAE and zero null points on the surface of the LP. I think that is something we need to care about.
This has me thinking about my ZYX UNIverse cartridge. I bought it because my neighbor had one, and on his system, it blew me away with its imaging and clarity and sense of space. I’ve owned my own sample for several years, and it has never performed up to the standards of my neighbor’s sample. I’ve had it mounted in a 10.5-inch Reed tonearm on a tweaked Technics SP10 Mk3 (Krebs mod and JP Jones chip upgrade in a slate and hardwood plinth). Several months ago, I became aware of the zenith issue. Subsequent examination of my UNIverse using my microscope reveals its stylus was mounted with an extreme error in zenith angle, at least 4-5 degrees. I have to think this may account for the underwhelming performance. I am now thinking of having my UNI re-tipped, not because of stylus wear but in order to fix zenith. Twisting the cartridge in the headshell is one way to compensate for a zenith error, but my sample would need an extreme twist, and that puts aberrant forces on the cantilever which could also compromise performance.
Getting the best, the measure of their quality, from individual components assembled into a listening system especially if they are high acheivers is akin to assembling a complex list of ingredients for a complex food item.
For a master chef the list of many ingredients coupled to a particular and nuanced way the many stages of the process must be undertaken is no bother. The master chef has been shown how to assemble which ingredients, the right and the wrong way to undertake the intricate stages of the process of acheiving the flavour result and how serving the final result affects the same.
A novice or amateur working under their own steam with no formal training and gleaning information from whoever offers it, might produce a masterpiece of this complex dish with complex stages and nuanced particular requirements. Generally however a complex dish with complex stages which all need to be performed correctly for a top notch end result will fall short. The combined lack of full insight and understanding of what is neccessary undermines result even if all of the assembled raw ingredients for the recipe are beyond criticism.
Hifi is a lot like that.
When we talk about systems and we see, with our eyes, the list of ingredients in the system, The list of components in that system. We are not seeing how accomplished is the person who put the system together. That can only be heard. From my own experience, first hand, of listening to a lot of systems other people put together. Even with first rate ingredients. Using records I brought along to every audition as a control. Most were murky and ill defined, even if ’pleasant and inoffensive’. Inoffensive sound. Murky and ill defined. With completely satisfied, even boastful, owners.
The biggest barrier to extracting the utmost from a collection of ingredients which work together in complex ways is the individual doing the assembly and the limitations of their understanding and lack of practical experience in optimising what they have assembled by way of ingredients.
The lesson: Read. Ask. Take time. Get out of your home and listen to as many different systems as you can acess. Find out why things sound excellent and what hinders. There is a lot which still remains barely known to any, myself included, but there is a lot of shared wisdom. Biggest thing is to get out of home with your CDs, records whatever and find out how good they should sound. That is tasting the recipe done right. Then after that we know if our efforts with the ingredients we have assembled approach or fall short by however much. Some combinations of components(systems) have no chance of ever producing the utmost of each individual ingredient. Many many many good ingredients combined(systems) simply are not being assembled and untilised optimally. That which we call tweaking for optimum the master chef calls doing the process right. Unlike cooking we can reverse and undo our mistakes, but we have to know first where we went wrong and have been exposed to an understanding of the correct process and what a great example of the taste of our recordings sounds like.
Better to be a great chef with modest ingredients than a naff chef with the best available ingredients.
A Cart' that is very familiar, used with a change to the Systems Amp's and New Speakers to was noticed to be a tiny bit off.
Same Cart' assessed with familiar Amp' and New Speakers, was still assessed as being a tiny bit off.
Vinyl Source compared to CD Source for the first time in this home on both above systems, was notable for being near as impressive as Vinyl.
All attendees inclusive of system owner was on board with the commentary about the Cart'.
Both Sources, inclusive of the variety of CD Sources performed in a very very attractive manner.
My conjecture is that a Cart' that is a Optimally aligned Cart', as a result of going beyond the typical methods to set up, does has a noticeable X Factor, but when the X has seemingly been removed, the Cart' remains thoroughly impressive.
Maybe the importance of the X in the listening, is the easy to detect condition when the X has seemingly been removed?
More Importantly the priority is at my end, to enjoy the entertainment that is on offer in the Company of friends and fellow hobbyists, which I suggest some would struggle with as being categorised as an Audiophile.
Raul, I agree that a strain gauge used without any correction would not conform well to RIAA, because it would not be correct in the region 500Hz to about 2kHz, where the RIAA curve has a plateau. But like you said, because we don't know the identity of the cartridge, or even if it is a strain gauge for sure, I felt that no further comment was justified.
Friction is unavoidable, even the lowest coefficient of friction achievable is friction.
Surfaces have imperfections, the contact of Two Surfaces imperfections when movement of surfaces is occurring causes the imperfections to deform as they rub onto each other.
Such minute movements on both surfaces and the resulting energies produced, are the suspected cause of Friction.
As the fundamental cause of Friction is not quite known, some producers in relation to Cartridge design, have gone to the lengths of spending extra on making the Styli an improved smoothness to its surface by polishing to produce a surface with less imperfections. I assume with the intent to improve slippage of the styli as meets a surface that will create a drag affect. This will assist with Speed Stability, but as for improved extraction of data from the groove modulation ???
" 26 tons of pressure per square inch at the cartridge stylus tip during its ridding "
Now, I don't need an explanation how is that that skating force can the stylus tip under that tremendous and infernal pressure at the tip to spin.
Common sense says:NO WAY.
Raul, are you suggesting that AS force is immaterial because it is so small in comparison with "26 tons per square inch"? Since neither the point of the stylus nor the side in contact with the groove is anything like a square inch, it would fairer to compare the actual applied forces, where the AS is about one tenth of the VTF.
@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.
Raul, I have more or less done such experiments already. The only way to get any null point on the playing surface of an LP, with the Viv or any other tonearm that has zero headshell offset, is to mount the tonearm with underhang. If you mount the tonearm with "no underhang or overhang", or in other words with the stylus tip over the center of the spindle, your null point is at the spindle, which of course is useless. If you mount the tonearm with overhang, there is also no useable null point. This is how Lofgren et al came to the idea of headshell offset for an overhung tonearm, I would guess. The L-shaped template supplied with the Viv Float tonearm puts the single null point about 90mm from the spindle, or about 2/3 of the distance from the outermost groove to the innermost groove. Interestingly, Dave Slagle predicted that would be about optimal too. I have found that to extract the best performance, the cartridge ought to be mounted using that template. Even a cm difference in mounting (with respect to the distance from the pivot or the stylus to the spindle) places the single null point either on the label or way out on the edge of the LP, and you lose the magic. (Or at least the magic that I hear.)
I agree with Dogberry. The business of extrapolating from VTF to a quantity in "pounds per square inch" said to represent the horrific pressure on an LP groove, is a red herring of the first order.
Yes, I think it makes sense to assure that the single null point falls somewhere on the playable surface of the LP, and for many reasons known to both of us, it seems a good idea to place it nearer to the innermost grooves than the outermost grooves. That minimizes both TAE and skating force. And my listening suggests it sounds best, which is the main goal.
There are links to two different tonearm geometries playing a solo piano in post #2. Please watch those videos before reading the whole thread, and especially before looking at the other links or further down to post #14 where the geometries are shown. The difference is huge, even to my ear.
Dogberry, Thank you so much for finding and posting the thread from DIYAudio. It's a very valuable contribution to this thread. I also finally see why the RS Labs RS-A1 might actually benefit from its weirdly raised pivot (which aligns the arm wand with cantilever VTA and thereby reduces vertical FM modulation). Too bad that this is done at the expense of some other factors. Nevertheless, the main issue is horizontal scrubbing and how it is greatly increased by headshell offset angle. I hope that some others who are dead set against underhung tonearms with zero headshell offset will read the DIYAudio thread and above all, watch and listen to the Youtube videos provided therein.
I’ve been using a zero offset headshell for 38 years - the arm is a linear tracker.
Superior tracking, most accurate soundstage and lowest distortion of any tonearm I have heard or set up ( including several highly vaunted pivoted arms in my toolbox ) by a country mile.
Looking at the scrubbing motion caused by both horizontal and vertical deviations of the cantilever, it makes me realise that this may have been the "cantilever haze" that Decca declared their cartridges would not suffer from.
Was thinking the same thing, not so much in terms of that phrase "cantilever haze" (with which I am not familiar), but of the fact that cartridges with a very short cantilever might be less subject to the phenomenon of horizontal scrubbing. For what it's worth, my DV 17D3, with its very short cantilever, sounds particularly special (meaning especially improved) on the Viv tonearm. Just food for thought.
Well, I tried...drilled my hole and then I printed out the gauge from the VivLabs RF manual which is available online. Next I tried a Jubilee. But if this is going to work, it probably needs a conventional cartridge. So I played an album I know well with a Sussurro MkII mounted conventionally, then swapped it onto the underhung arm, set VTF and alignment with the Viv protractor and played it again. It didn't sound as good! Much less bass (in each case I had the arm set to be horizontal when the stylus is on the record). Same VTF, same associated equipment, same arms except for the alignment. Anti-skate set to zero for the underhung arm. I'm surprised, but maybe I did something wrong somewhere, the cartridge looks straight and aligned with the length of the tonearm, but maybe I was just a little off with my drill? I'll play some more, but for now I've put the Sussurro back where it came from. More experimentation required!
This is using the tonearm where the pivot bearings are offset to match headshell offset? Or if not, what tonearm? I'd be willing to lend you my RS Labs RS-A1, if you're interested.
Yes, the bearings are aligned with an offset headshell, and all I have done is mounted the cartridge in the headshell to nullify the offset, and placed the arm such that the stylus aligns with the ViVLabs protractor.
Thanks for the offer, but if I can't make this set-up sound good I'll just go back to what I normally use (and which, TBH, I am content with).
With high quality, properly set up arms and cartridges very little of this applies. What is with that silly brush hanging of the front of that cartridge? I always removed those as they increase skating. I stared at the cantilever of my Atlas and the only movement at the time was due to the eccentricity of the record which is a far more common source of pitch variation along with warps. @lewm Remember that Nakamichi turntable that corrected eccentricity? If there is any "scrubbing" in my setup, which is nothing special, I can not see it. All this theoretical masterbation gives me a headache. If you choose your cartridges wisely, considering the tonearm or arms that you have and set them up carefully, none of this applies. The record itself is a far more common source of error.
I don’t like the brush, either, but that has nothing to do with “scrubbing”. If the whole thing is a red herring, why didn’t anyone on DIYAudio challenge it? I agree, it’s not easy to visualize. The visible wiggle only occurred in the YouTube videos when they introduced resonant frequency test tones superimposed on the audible test tone. I found the videos most convincing.
I own the 13" version of both the aluminum and carbon fiber arms - simultaneously for almost two years now. I am currently using them with a SOTA Millennia Eclipse and Transfiguration Proteus and Mutech Hayabusa cartridges. I also have used them with the Benz Micro Ebony TR, Dynavector XV-1s, and Denon 103R cartridges. I have owned many arms over the past 30 years and these are the most musical and graceful I've yet encounted. Everyone who hears them is absolutely amazed and beguiled. They allow the cartridge to breath and achieve their absolute expression. A beautiful design.
@ieimagoStated "I have owned many arms over the past 30 years and these are the most musical and graceful I've yet encountered. Everyone who hears them is absolutely amazed and beguiled. They allow the cartridge to breath and achieve their absolute expression. A beautiful design."
I myself have not owned many arms' but did get through a couple which are still owned to get to the place of owning a SME IV. The IV remained a Tonearm not be be investigated for change for many many years.
At a time when the notion was to develop, that maybe more could be on offer from the IV. As part of my investigations for the IV, I was to discover a Tonearm that was a Design produced for a already existing Tonearm. Where the TA was introduced to new modern design materials and machining tolerances. that were not typical as a tolerance or available material at the time the TA was in manufacture and being marketed.
Your description offered about 'breath' and 'expression' is completely fitting to my own experiences had using the TA I have adopted in place of the SME IV. I always feel the Cart' when mounted on this TA Design is a optimised interface for the Cart' that is mounted. As I know of Four of these TA's in use and get to hear them coupled to a selection of Cart's used in a selection of systems. My thoughts about optimised interfacing is drawn from more than my own encounters in my own system.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
