I’ve been waiting for this thread for a while.
I have a 10" Viv Labs arm that I haven’t used much as my secondary arm. The main reason for purchase was that it’s easy and relatively affordable to implement on my plinth without buying an entirely new plinth or doing a bunch of legwork to figure out how to implement a more conventional arm with a tonearm pillar.
I have a Soundsmith Strain Gauge cartridge coming soon that I will be using with the Viv Labs arm. My main arm will be for ’orthodox’ archival stuff, and the Viv Labs / Strain Gauge combo will be for ’experimental’ archival stuff. I archive 90-to-100-year-old 78s, so it might be hard to hear any meaningful difference given the limited frequency response and lower signal-to-noise ratio. I think the Strain Gauge will have a more dynamic time-domain sound compared to the Shure V15 and M44 cartridges most archivists use to transfer 78s (especially knowing how to correctly re-EQ the Strain Gauge, which nobody else has figured out).
I still wonder whether I should just bite the bullet and buy a Kuzma 4Point or something roughly equivalent and tonearm pillar. I see there’s still no real consensus on what distortions, if any, are imparted by the Viv Labs arms...doesn’t seem to be anything measurable, anyway. Nobody can quantifiably rank the importance of tonearm design elements. As others have said, horizontal tracing angle error doesn’t seem to be as important as many think.
Reading the Brochure Content. The Viv Labs wording seems to be Transparent when describing a error that is increased in its effect over some other arm designs ・NO OFFSET-ANGLE STRUCTURE So we dare to choose completely straight (i.e. NO OFFSET-ANGLE) structure. 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 even with 7” model. |
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.
|
Makes sense to me when paying attention to the coil alignment/stability. Consider how hypercritical VTF can be on a well setup MC pickup. Why wouldn’t a stable lateral load be just as important? Maybe that’s what ARA had in mind with the damping trough of the original Series V?? |
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. |
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. |
@lewm , and in my pedestrian experience that is all clear BS. Not you, but the claims this person makes. @clearthinker , now crank that experiment to the admitted 10 degrees. It's killing me. Anybody have a test record with synchronous sine waves in both channels? It will be easy to see the effect on a scope. Another important point @lewm made earlier is that an underhung arm is not free of skating due to the curvature of the record. the effect is going to skate the tonearm outwards toward the rim at both the outside then again on the inside. So at the most difficult area to track you are faced with both skating and a 10 degree tracking error. In my book that sucks. If any of you have not looked at the Reed 5T, the 5A and the Schroder LT you should. These are the solutions very bright people came up with that solve a host of issues. The only problem is that they require a lot of real estate, a table that can handle 12" arms at least. |
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. |
The answer is plain. An infinitely long tonearm (or, as my physics mentor used to say with a nod to Newton and Liebnitz, "as near as makes no difference" in a strong Yorkshire accent), with no offset and it's one and only null point set near the label where it is needed most (for the density of musical information per unit length of groove). You know it makes sense, as the seatbelt campaign used to say. Seriously, we cannot judge this tonearm until we try it. The arguments from its designer are sensible, but are they enough to overcome conventional wisdom? Only listening would tell us. I wish I were in a position to try it out! |
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. |
the RS-A1 does indeed have a rotating headshell but what most people do not realize is that it is intended to have the pivot of the headshell directly above the stylus. Most people view this as a "horse and trailer design" with the pivot ahead of the stylus so it can better follow the groove. This is NOT the intent of the design. I have a fair amount of experience with this arm and find it to be a really good sounding easy to set up design. In trying to measure the tracking abilities the numbers were not representative of the perceived sonics. I also have a 9" Schröder Reference which I underhung and set of 0° offset and again the perceived sonics of the angular misalignment didn't seem anywhere near the same as a similar error on a traditional overhung tonearm. It is important to note that in both of the above cases the "design" of the underhung arm had the ability to absorb the energy caused by mistracking. The cartridge suspension allows for movement in the lateral and the vertical plane but conventional designs go to great lengths to lock everything else in place. The RS-A1 has the ability to rotate axially along the vertical plane and the Schröder has a floating magnetically damped bearing. I also believe the the the Viv arm also has this ability to allow some form of absorption / damping in a third direction. If we accept that angular error causes mistracking, it seems entirely plausible that how the arm deals with and recovers from a less than ideal situation could play a large role in the sonic signature of the design. Simply equating X° of angular error to some rumored distortion percent and calling the playing field level is far too simplistic of an approach. dave
|
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. |
@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.
|
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? |
Thanks for the explanation - I did pick up that if the pivot directly above the stylus, then it cannot be self aligning. They claim that the pivoted headshell deals with needle chatter.
This is of more concern to me - mistracking damages records. This would be a high price to deal with the vagaries of anti-skating, even though In my experience most folk apply too much anti-skate, resulting in offset cantilevers over time. Most interestingly during an audio hiatus I ran a high compliance MM in a linear tracker for 10 years with the same stylus - cantilever was still dead straight despite the highish horizontal mass. Of course there are no skating forces with a linear tracker. Is it possible to reverse the headshell 180 degrees with the RS and run a trailing pivoted headshell ?? Could be interesting.
|
A Bose radio can sound "good" to some people. The RS Labs arm is a seriously defective design. The only reason some people think it sounds good is because the rest of their system/room is defective in some way or these people do not know what to listen for. The same holds true of the Viv arm. Everyone should angle their cartridge 10 degrees and listen to what happens to the image. I did this last night just for fun. Distortion of any type is inaudible below a certain limit. It is said that IM distortion becomes audible above 1%. Below 1% it is inaudible. Dynamic speakers can easily exceed that limit. There are many other types of distortion. The point is to minimize all of them below their detectible limits, all of them. The 9 inch, offset, pivoted, gimbal tonearm does this better than any other design excepting carriage driven linear tonearms and the Reed and Schroder arms. This is pure mechanical engineering and physics. What ANYBODY says something sounds like is totally and completely meaningless unless you have first hand experience with that person's abilities listening to a sota system. Most of us do not know what a sota system sounds like because we have never heard one listening from a proper listening position to a variety of excellent recordings. Because some people will think just about anything can sound good, shysters try to take advantage of this spewing out crap, sometimes expensive crap that does absolutely nothing or even make things worse. Some humans will do just about anything to make money. Looking at your spam folder should convince you of this. Sometimes equipment is generated by honest people who have an idea or design that is unusual in some way but violates the laws of physics in a way they do not understand. Perhaps these arms are an example of this. It does not make these designs less defective. |
I think this is exactly the point. I find the term "mistracking" quite vague and have yet to fine a "firm" definition of it. On the most basic level mistracking is any movement of the stylus that is not in the direction of the path made by the cutterhead. I do believe we are constantly mistracking and how the system deals with that behavior is critical to both the final sound and ultimate wear on a record over time. The net results of any mistracking are two fold; sonic degradation in the immediate and stylus/record wear in the long term. Unfortunately this is not something that can be distilled down to the TAE being the "only number we have" so that is all that matters approach taken by some in this discussion. We first have to accept that for a given cartridge there is a distinct possibility that the sonic results of a 5° TAE will not be equivalent from tonearm to tonearm and I think that is the point that many who use and like the underhung arms are trying to make.
Interestingly enough... I see two distinct problems with the concept of the RS-A1. Being able to align a stylus to a hidden uni-pivot bearing 17mm above it is a challenge and then only being given three pair of mounting holes at 6mm increments makes the concept of the pivot directly above the stylus a near impossibility. That said, when eyeballing it I have always picked the slots that error on trailing side since the thought of the stylus leading the pivot terrifies me. Of most importance the sound has never given me the feel that there was severe misalignment which lead me to much of my thinking above. dave |
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. |
My goodness me, this thread has grown arms and legs. As you know I have a 9" Viv Labs, the only people that can comment with any authority is those people that have heard one, once heard you can draw your own conclusions. For information the place I bought mine from is the designer and manufacturer of Living Voice speakers and I know that Kevin Scott is highly regarded within the industry and is good friends with Frank Kuzma. I know for a fact that he has tried numerous arms, included some of the arms lorded by others in this thread and decided against them for no other reason than how they performed. What I am certain of there is no way he would promote or sell a product that he did not believe in. |
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? |
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 : 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.. |
My gut feel is the opposite. If the pivot trails the stylus tip the cantilever suspension joint is closer to the pivot point, compared to if the stylus tip trails the pivot point ( as you run it ), then the cantilever suspension point is further from the pivot point and therefore any directional correction driven from the stylus tracking the groove will result in a higher lateral force on the cantilever - more mass swinging around behind the pivot point too
|
@alan60 , You need to read the thread. What people think they hear is essentially meaningless. It tell you nothing about the actual performance of the unit. It only tells you that it works and plays music. @lewm , As I said minimizing distortion is important and the phase error that a 10 degree tracking error causes is most definitely audible. 2 or three degrees maybe not, but as the error increases the phase shift crawls down the frequency spectrum to places where it is more audible with systems that image correctly. Listen to a great recording of a female soprano. Then twist your cartridge 10 degrees and listen again. Her location will become less distinct. Some might mistake this for ambience which it most certainly not. The Viv arm has other substantial disabilities like it's bearing and I know you and I agree on this. A tonearm has to be rigidly connected to the plater. THey can be absolutely no differential in their movement. A tonearm can have two degrees of freedom period, vertical and horizontal. |
I have followed this thread from the beginning. I find the concept of underhung arms intriguing because it goes against most all of the established phono playback geometry that many of us have long accepted, yet those who’ve heard such arms report results that conflict with expectations. Someday, I hope to hear such an arm and decide for myself. I hope others do the same, rather than yield to the dogmatic theorists who don’t need to listen to know what something sounds like, and don’t want you to listen, either.
|
I have a history that has an experience of numerous Tonearms. I do not recollect if such a Geometry used for the design of this Tonearm or a similar Geometry has been encountered. Listening to the good user reports and the Arms the Viv Labs has Superseded as reported on, I am intrigued, and would very much like to be demonstrated this Tonearm Geometry in use. The criticisms of the design for the Geometry are not enough to deter me from attempting to use two avenues to have the experience from a Tonearm that is very familiar. I am aware a Titanium Wand Material has been in storage for a while at the producer of the Tonearm I use. As the Viv Lab Arm has a Straight Wand, I am already encouraging the designer of my Tonearm to look into producing a wand that will enable a experience of this Geometry. I would prefer to have the experience created on a Tonearm I am very familiar with and the Tonearm mounted in a methodology that is closest to what I trust in as the ideal method. The real Blocker I see, is that a Plinth may need to be modified to create the correct pivot > spindle spacing, the plinth material I class as ideal is rare in the UK and a modified Spindle Cut Out might cause and issue. The second option is to introduce the other Tonearm Designer / Producer I am good friends with and seek their support. This Tonearm Designer has built form scratch their Tonearm Design and is one I have been invited to receive demonstrations of on quite a few occasions during the R&D and working prototype stages. It is my view that mechanically this Arm is optimised, I know the tolerances in use, and the performance is in my view parity or better that the best I have had experience of. The next stage of development for this arm is agreed, which is to produce it to a high quality visual aesthetic and dedicate Two Arms to be used for the the Signal Path wiring trials with a selection of sourced wires A Plinth is already produced to be used for A/B comparisons of the Arm, and is produced from my ideal Plinth Material. The design for the Plinth is a Two Arm design with a Tonearm Base Plate utilised that can accept 2 x 9" or 2 x 12" Tonearms. I feel confident the Viv Labs Geometry or very similar can be accomplished on this plinth. I also feel if there is a good impression the other Plinth/Chassis can be adapted to receive this Geometry. I am aware the method above is far from the Viv Labs mechanical design, but the Geometry selected is looking able to be transferred.
|
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. |
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. |
@lewm It sounds a easier sell, when explaining the -17.5mm dimension as a guideline. It won’t be the worse mistake I made with a Tonearm, when it comes to resting on laurels and believing enough is achieved, that one is today looking like the sitting on the usage of the SME IV for such a long period. After a recent experience of being demonstrated the latest guise of the Tonearm I use with the Signal Wire of choice in the Wand, DIN> RCA, Phonostage Signal Path, Phonostage Power Chord, RCA>RCA, Speaker Wire. Along with a New Speaker in use, I am lost for words, dumbfounded, and still remain scratching my head trying to work out, how the experience as been super impressive and standout over other encounters which yielded a impressive experience. Looks like this Tonearm Designers work is now ’out of the bag’ beyond the UK. The Tonearms have has now gone Global, there are users now in Mainland Europe, Australia and America, which one of three in the USA is with a user based in Washington. |
@cleeds , Like @raulirugas said, what you think you hear is meaningless. I include myself in that category. With issues like this science always knows best. Everything else is alchemy. I have made my own missteps in the past and have learned not to buck the reality of the situation. Viv owners seem not to understand that reality and that they have been taken advantage knowingly or not by the purveyors of snake oil. There is a sucker born every minute and I have to admit I have been suckered plenty. In order to be old and wise you have to be suckered a lot. @ pindac, like I said above there is a sucker born every minute. Consumer beware. " A bose radio can sound good to some people." There is no such thing as a perfect tonearm. Each one has a slew of compromises which should be aimed at minimizing all significant sources of distortion in a balanced way. The offset pivoted tonearm with anti skating is the solution scientists came up with over a period of 100 years and most of the work was done 90 years ago. In state of the art systems the sonic benefits of this design executed intelligently are obvious. My suggestion to those Viv owners who are looking for the best sound quality is to suck it up and get rid of that arm. That it sounds good to some people is meaningless. @rauliruegas , you may not be so hot typing English but there can be no doubt you know how to read it :-) |
@mijostyn Ague your point and make all the analogies required to get your point across, I don't see it being heeded, iif a individual has their mind set on experiencing a device they will. If such a experience has proven more satisfying through demonstration, than a design that has aligned itself to minimising a host of Mechanical and Geometry concerns as being presented within this thread, it is looking quite likely the most satisfying option is to become a priority pursuit. When looking at the Tonearms now being reported on, as less preferred, even superseded, by the Viv Lab Arm, it is going to take a lot more than futile Argument or fanciful Analogies to steer one to the course being proposed by yourself. It looks like, from my perspective a enjoyment has been discovered and is one worthy of maintaining, which pretty much suggests the entertainment factor of listening to recorded music is being met. Who has a goal that does not include that?
|
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 has hit the nail on the head surely the point is the enjoyment of music. I don't know about anyone else but when I buy a new piece of equipment I don't give a stuff about the theories, the equations, the technical specifications, the measured performance etc, all I am interested in is does it engage me in the music more that the piece of equipment it is replacing, whilst still fulfilling the usual hifi criteria. If it ticks these boxes then funds permitting I buy it. This is exactly what the Viv Labs did and why I bought it over a Kuzma 4point, Kuzma 313ref. So I say to @rauliruegas and @mijostyn if you get the opportunity please have an objective listen to a Viv Labs and put all the theories, equations etc to one side. If it doesn't float your boat then fine. Please do not try to say those people who have bought a Viv Labs and are enjoying it have been taken advantage of and that the retailer's are purveyors of snake oil, as that is just patronising and derogatory, which I would have hoped was beneath you, but obviously not. |
Agree with those that say "just listen" and then tell us your thoughts. I’ve never heard a Viv tonearm or even seen one in the wild but it does look interesting. Many people said that Kuzma’s new SAFIR tonearm that has a mass of 60 gms would NEVER work either. (Kuzma says is suitable for cartridges with CU below 25 and hence the tonearm resonance will be in range of 5-7 Hz which is preferable) But I was sent one to have a listen to and all I can say is WOW! Never heard a tonearm that sounded like no other before, it was like the cartridge was just riding in the grooves of the LP. I had no intensions of buying it but once heard it wasn’t going anywhere. (Dealer disclaimer) |
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. |
I'm still debating whether my Viv arm will be suitable for 78 (mono) archival work...leaning toward "yes" being that any stereo inner groove phase errors can be corrected in my 2-channel software when summing the channels. Small potatoes in the scheme of things. With 78s, there is always some level of phase error regardless of the stylus fit anyway. That seems to be the biggest beef with this arm. |
@alan60 I like yourself don't do equations, I have as a result of the route chosen to produce my HiFi System, been able to meet with a few very adept Electronic Engineers and Mechanical Engineers, and as a result of the relationships developed, have immediate access and support to be guided by these Professional Individuals, who have done much work with equations and designing/building as daily practices throughout their careers. Additionally, I have a selection Book Marked 'go to' Web Sites, where the necessary info' about analogue replay requirements can be found. There is a substantial amount of info' at hand. I don't seem to have any issues with understanding these, even if infrequently visited, I can also run a few things over with the more learned than myself when needed. It really is not difficult today for an individual to present themselves as a Expert, when the Calculators to do needed equations are readily available to all. There are those who create math and those that interpret the math created, neither are able to find perfection, but usually the one who creates the math, has a better knowledge of why the math is as it is, maybe like the Viv Lab Designer. The types create/interpret, are worlds apart, I have learned to stick close to those who do the math and are walking the walk in line with their creative thinking, experience has proven, these types are a pleasure to know. I keep well away from the types that are talking the talk, when it comes to advice, these types, are usually flimsy and not well rooted, the story/stories presented has many twists and turns, as the talk is attempted to be proved/disproved. I have spent time reading the Posts from past years on subjects of interest from a selection of the regular contributors to the Audiogon Analog Forum, and have no doubts that ideas and theories are formed in shifting sand, that reshape over time. The good reports and positive Vibe on offer from the Viv Lab Arm users reporting on their 'experiences' due to having a 'sat in front of' encounter, has got my curiosity, hence my thoughts leaning toward creating a quite affordable underhung design that can be mounted on a Particular TT in mind, and used as a A/B comparison to a Overhung design using two Cart's of the same Brand and Model with very similar usage life. This is not too strange as the same TT>Plinth>Cart's is put in place to A/B compare Branded Tonearms against the Tonearm Design I am now using and the Built from Scratch Tonearm. A very open mind will be present and evaluations will be on the qualities discovered to be on offer, not the Design or Geometry Shortcomings, which can be found in most set ups, I have chosen 'Stevenson A' as my poison. |
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. |
@rauliruegas 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, and to me I enjoy what the Viv Labs brings to my system. |
And as much as I publicly denigrate unbelievable tweaks and hacks, if something is not easily measured, our own ears have to decide. We remember, most of us, that ears are affected by psychoacoustics. And even if you can't measure the effect of a device, it can be shown to be effective in a double blind trial. This tonearm pitches one source of distortion, tracking error, against another, anti-skating force. It should be relatively easy to come to some kind of consensus as to which of those factors hurts the sound we hear most. Should we not be testing that in a double blind fashion? |
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 am totally and completely comfortable in my position. My goal is to keep others from making the same mistake. You obviously are resistant to buyer's remorse. I would not buy a Viv arm like I would not buy a tricycle all terrain vehicle. The only difference is the Viv is not dangerous. But please do not feel bad. You are in very good company. In my youth I purchased some seriously stupid equipment like the Transcriptors Vestigial Tonearm, live and learn. People have to get off this listening thing. You can not trust what other people hear because there is way too much variability in system and listening performance. Unless you are very well seasoned you can not even trust yourself. This is also not about music. We all love music or we would not be doing this. This is about system performance and design issues that make for a competent device. I am not going to beat around the bush when I see an obviously defective design. Because some people think it sounds good means absolutely nothing to me. |
Dogberry, The distortion caused by the Viv are is easily measured and if your system is really good and you know what you are listening to is quite audible. Most of my music listening is done in my shop in loud background fashion using mid Fi equipment I don't mind getting choked with dust. Yup, I like listening to the big system better but I am enjoying the music either way. I can't be in the listening position and make furnisher at the same time. It is also a very bad idea for an old person to get stuck in a seat. |
