you are incorrect. both skating / anti-skate and groove modulation effect the cantilever angle. My estimation is a 3dB change in excitation level or a 1.5g change in skating force is enough to make a Lofgren A move about 1/2 way towards a Lofgren B alignment. (~0.25° of zenith change) dave |
Dear @richardkrebs : For me the main issue it’s not if we can see that the cantilever move to the rigth side ( the tonearm ASmechanism helps a little gainst that " rigth side " magnitude. ) the main issue for me is if the stylus tip is in the grooves angle tha Löfgreen alignments measured all over the grooved LP surface: Next link we can appreciate what happens down there during play proccess: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYE67fVny4c
against the stylus tip grooves ridding friction developed huge forces the skating seems to me can't change the measured tracking angle all over the LP surface .
R. |
Another Viv protagonist here; it certainly appears that conventional thinking and experimentation was incomplete. One may apply the same to headshell, phono cartridge, phono amplifier. Imagine this, no offset, no anti skate, no rigid bearing, a pivoting headshell, i.e. Nasotec Swing, MM cartridge, no RIAA filter, no mechanical bonding of tonearm to spindle, must sound awful? Far from it. Very far, in fact. Rgds, Paul |
Ok obviously that link didnt work...you may need to copy and past on the youtube search box lets try this Скатывающая сила как измерить (youtube.com) |
Ok I have a theory... On a conventional arm with offset headshell..if you draw an imaginary line extending the cantilever, past its suspension point, all the way backwards to the plane of the arms pivot point. Viewed from the front of the cartridge, the new ultra-long cantilever will terminate at a point way above and to the right of the arms pivot point. Now the theory...Attached here is a link that very graphically shows the magnitude of stylus drag. ( I hope the link works) watch to at least 4 mins. Скатывающая сила как измерить (youtube.com) Now pull on the stylus ... due to the compliance of the cartridge suspension AND the headshell offset, the end of our extended cantilever will move downwards and to the left. If there was enough travel in the cartridges suspension and if we pulled on the stylus hard enough, the extended cantilever would ultimately touch the arms pivot point. So back to an actual cartridge... the action of stylus drag causes the cantilever to squat down a little. This has been talked about in other forums, and I believe mentioned by Michael Fremer, but the action of stylus drag with an offset headshell also causes the cantilever to move to the right when viewed from the front of the cartridge. By how much? I don't know... would it be enough to cancel a carefully set up Lofgren alignment? Possibly. Would it cause an increase tracking error distortion? Maybe. Would it mean that a underhung arm, when playing a record actually has less tracking error distortion than an offset overhung arm? IOW opposite to what the theoretical static calculations would suggest. ..Maybe. If this 'yawing' action is a thing, it would be constantly changing with the level of modulation. I could speculate that it would result in a kind of "dirtiness" to the sound and a sense of the stylus scratching its way thru the groove. Cheers. |
This morning being a leisurely Sunday morning, I re-read the entirety of this thread from beginning to end, although I admit I skipped through some of those from naysayers that I already knew by heart. What struck me is that each of the major protagonists (or should I call us "antagonists"), myself included, wrote the same thing, over and over again, sometimes using different words but not much different logic. Around page 5, I bought the Viv 9HA (9-inch, aluminum tube) and started reporting on that. That was about a year ago this month. I remain very pleased with this tonearm. If anything, I have understated the degree to which I enjoy it so as to avoid the predictable backlash. Suffice to say, I agree with the other guys who are also owners and who posted one or two very positive comments and then left this thread, wisely. Raul, why is it that my ideas about why the Viv sounds so good are just "blah, blah, blah", whereas your constant parroting of your belief system over and over again is not also "blah"? (I’m giving you only one "blah", because it’s so boring.) Is it just because the overhung tonearm is received wisdom? AS does NOT "control" the skating force, by any means, by the way. One could make an argument that AS makes things worse by putting a torque on the cantilever, which is already under horizontal duress due to skating. AS is like a stopped clock; it is correct (i.e., it equals the skating force in magnitude) at two short moments during the 20 minutes duration of an LP side. And even then it is combining with the skating force to put a twist on the cantilever, because it is applied near the pivot. |
Dear @lewm : Seems to me that you " die for " the skating force and nothing wrong with that.
Now, LT tonearms appeared for one main critical reason ( where skate develoved was not in that " equation ". ) that was and is that the mounted cartridge on it rides the LP grooves surface in "exactly " the same way that that LP recording was under the cutting head machine this is LT. Audiophiles, me including, bougth the LT ( still today do. ) designs for that main critical reason and no one said or say: " I’m buy because no skating ", no one cares about because this is only an additional side LT tonearm benefit.
In the other side almost all the off-set angle pivot tonearms come with some kind of anti-skating mechanism that in some way or the other has the AS under " control " and no not " perfect " but those kind of designers try to put at minimum. So, all overhang tonearm designs with Löfgreen alignments set-up are ( no matter what ) the second best " road " behind the LT and not the underhung that you like it or not is far away from there . The overhang tonearm designs are not with ZERO ( 0 ) AS, designers take care about in the best each one of them can and again not " perfect "..
R.
|
My experience of dealing with AS has left me to do the method where there is a eye on the Styli/Cantilever within the Groove at the Outer Grooves approx’ 5mm inside of the Lead In Dead Wax and again at the Inner Groove approx’ 5mm inside of the Lead Out Dead Wax. As long as the Cantilever is seemingly to my eye not askew, I settle for that as the side force that is to work with said Cartridge. This is the one that seemingly transfers across a selection of Albums. As said in the past in my descriptions the Hole Centre Groove Misalignment when present has a Industry Standard that does not increase to more than 0.2mm. As I have a interest in Cart’s Optimisation, I have quite a few years of observing Cart’s conditions, as a result of viewing images supplied by Third Party Services and others with a similar interest to my own for taking Macro Images and showing their own Cart’s. On numerous occasions I have witnessed Cart’s from a broad range of purchase values, that are with Cantilevers noticeably askew and off the Centre Line to the Cart’s Body. I have the notion, this is a cause due to the Cart’s fragility in conjunction with incorrect AS being used at the time of Set Up, or AS Creep has occurred and has not been recognised to have occurred through a extended period of the Cart’s usage. It does seem to me the cause of the askew, is usually outside of what a loss of set up for overall optimisation, or what any wear and tear issues developing within the Cart’s critical mechanical interfaces is able to create. I would also strongly suggest such off centred cantilevers are resulting in a excess of force being applied/developing, that is capable of causing uneven wear to a Groove Wall and a Styli. How much damage is occurring to the LP’s Groove Wall that is irreparable, is something I have not got the knowledge to comment on. Is there any known situations where a user has reported back that a Cart’ with a In Line Cantilever, after a period of usage on a Underhung Geometry has been witnessed to have a Cantilever that is quite noticeably askew to the Cart’s Centre Line?? https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=955090456619022&set=pcb.955093459952055
|
Is there the possibility the Cart's Styli will have less wear from a Groove Side Wall when used on a Underhung Geometry Tonearm? I ask this, as the anti skate is not required, hence the force that can be applied to a groove side wall, through Anti Skate Setting creep or inaccurate set up on a Overhung Geometry is no longer an impact on the Styli when used on a Underhung Geometry. In relation to the value of some Cart's that are being purchased and mounted on a Tonearm, if a method used that is able to extend Cart' Life through lessened wear, and the TA > Cart' marriage is one the end user finds audibly satisfying. The notion that wear might be decreased, might be one more occurrence to add to why a underhung geometry is worth considering. |
"I had to change to pivot alternative to reach the rigth bass range and to do this the second best alternative was and is use the Löfgreen alignments that puts that stylus tip nearer to what the LT does: NO MATTER WHAT. .." That depends, doesn't it, on what a LT tonearm "does". In your opinion, it's the elimination of TAE. But the virtue of an LT tonearm could just as well be the elimination of the skating force. If you think the goal above all else is to keep TAE as low as possible, even if it means a significant increase in the skating force, then an overhung tonearm is just the ticket. If the goal is minimizing the skating force, then an underhung tonearm is preferable, when choosing among pivoted tonearms. Also, one could argue that the overhung tonearm does not come closest to an LT tonearm at any point in its arc; only the underhung tonearm achieves zero TAE and zero skating force, at its single null point. The overhung tonearm never gets near to the latter goal. Anyway, I apologize to anyone reading this thread. I hope I and some others who appreciate the Viv have convinced at least a few of us to approach the issue with an open mind. |
Dear @reimarc : Well , I will no drink to that and let me explain what I posted.
" how do you actually know what exactly is encoded in the LP grove? Unless you have the master tape side by side. "
I never posted that kind of statement what I posted is that my target is to stay nearer/truer to the recording and I posted too that to reach or been close to that target weneed that each kind of system developed distortions most be at minimum.
My take in whole audio MUSIC reproduction to have top MUSIC enjoyment is to try to have an equilibrium between your classic dogma 100% subjectivity that ( you repeated ( some way or the other ) in your answer to me ) and objectivity that in this thread issue demands that the stylus tip be centered in the groove modulations. In my target I reached it using that equilibrium when for one side objectivity tells that any one of us must use LT tonearms and I did it and through the time ( i owned at least 3 different LT and over 15 pivoted tonearms and over 150 any kind of cartridges with different cartridge motors andat least 7 different TTs ) my subjectivity ( equilibrium ) tells me that I had to change to pivot alternative to reach the rigth bass range and to do this the second best alternative was and is use the Löfgreen alignments that puts that stylus tip nearer to what the LT does: NO MATTER WHAT. The underhung just has not that "perfect "equilibrium, no it's not rocket science only common sense andnoIdon`t need those master tapes and if you or any one makes what me neither will need. Yes, from my statements you are far away from the recording and overall wrong and not because I say so but because almost all of you have not looking for that way demanding equilibrium.
R.
|
@dogberry Before making a new penetration into a owned and spare SME Headshell, please refer to the numerous White Papers that are to be discovered on the matter. I have not been privvy to such elusive content, but do suggest there would be another methodology in use for at least 60 Years to mount a Cart' to a Headshell, if a Penetration in a Headshell was a concern. SME the revered Company it is, in the eyes of some, has a line of Perforated Headshells, which seemingly or strongly suggests, the Company has not found any fault, or been very confident in a design with additional penetrations in a Headshell. In relation to the Viv, I feel the methodology for the use of the Oil at a Interface, is one that has a contribution to the end sound the TA is able to produce, and one that is able to make much more of an impression to the end sound than the Trials of Oil Damping I was privvy to. I feel confident in claiming to typical oil damping methodology for the TA with the rear mounted trough, does very little audibly, not even tidying up the end sound. I have had much more success tidying up end sound with a Puck Weight, |
I’ll drink to that. But I will add that it does or did make a positive difference when I carefully aligned the cartridge using the L-shaped template, vs when the same cartridge was out of alignment by several mm using the same template, due to my own carelessness. So I use the template each time I change cartridges. So far, I have auditioned about four different cartridges in the Viv, all of which were familiar to me based on prior listening in overhung tonearms. In each case, the Viv excelled, with characteristics as Reimac described. (This is another important point; if you look at reviews on the internet, the positive comments of disparate listeners using a wide variety of audio systems hang together.) |
To rauliruegas Thanks for your comments. My question to every reviewer (including Harry Pearson at the 2008 RMAF): how do you actually know what exactly is encoded in the LP grove? Unless you have the master tape side by side. And no, I don't want your memory from a concert of the same recording, because our memories are intrinsically imprecise, and between that event and what you are supposed to hear lies a chain of electromechanical recording events AND the taste - or absence thereof - of the recording engineer. So, when you speak of your "target" as "picking up information as is in the grove": what's your benchmark? How do you actually know what's really in the grove, and how do you know whether this cartridge picks up more, and that one less, or that tonearm/cartridge combo, or that tonearm by itself, etc.? Unless you know from the master tape exactly what should be there. And even this is only an approach, because you have no idea what went wrong or sideways during the pressing process. In other words, referring to the "Absolute Sound" as a benchmark in this hobby is fundamentally flawed logic! The only - albeit admittedly subjective - way of accepting or discarding a piece of equipment is our own enjoyment of a piece of music on a record, which we know very well, and have listened to through many different reproducing machines. Only that way can you be sure the new piece is "better" for your ears and oxytocin release. And what about measurements? "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!" If a great-measuring piece makes me want to turn down the volume and cuddle my frightened cat instead of listening, that glorious piece of electronics will go to USAudiomart! I just went through this process with a couple of highly-recommended DACS: they all seemed to scream at me: Hey, listen to ME!", putting themselves before anything musical. Only since two weeks after getting my MSB Discrete, am I finally happy with my DSD256, approaching in terms of pleasure what normally comes from my analog deck. I only keep my Stereophile subscription because of the many references to records that I did not know about, because I cannot listen to a particular piece in MY room with MY gear and peripherals, and most importantly with MY ears, as bad as they might objectively be at 75. Back to this discussion: I spent a lot of treasure on Wally gear and precious times to set my analog front ends to the best-possible values; and yet there was always that nagging Doubt in my mind if I really coaxed the best sound of my system, or if a professional, like Saint Bosclair, would have done a much better job. This can become a real psychological issue in my opinion, ultimately taking the joy out of any listening. And along comes the ViV Rigid Float, which can be placed anywhere on or near(!) the TT plinth, as long as it reaches the inner groves of your LP, and - Lofgren Shloffgren - produces truly enjoyable music, and makes me lean back in my chair and enjoy my glass of Sazerac. Sorry, pal, but for me that's all I need to be happy! |
Dear @dogberry : No, I’m not suggesting nothing like that but only my mistake ( sorry. ) and misunderstood for your statement posted:
" I’m half regretting waking up this thread, especially as some find it hard to be civil. " I really don't care ( in good shape ) about your experiment, perhaps only for that " crime " adding that third hole to a SME tonearm I posted in this thread that once I tested with my SAEC 8000. Were other " times " in my audio life and I did it even with out the existence of underhung tonearm designs. R.
R. |
Dear @reimarc @lewm and friends: " I think the complete acoustic decoupling by the fluid bed plays an important role here....."
Way important along the tonearm arm wand O rings to tame additional resonances/distortions.. Well, in this thread I posted similar statements about self tonearm damping importance in the VIV but till today only you as an owner took in count the tonearm critical importance of that damping. In the past and in several other threads about different tonearms designs I almost always posted exactly what you said and that I said too even in this post. For me your damping tonearm statements speaks who you are, good.
In the other side: " I strongly recommend to forget historic dogma in this case and let your ears decide,.." well, for me and my targets that " let your ears decide " is the real " historic dogma " touted by vintage and today reviewers and audio manufacturers.
Now,I’m not against your dogma and the Löfgreen alignments is not in any way an " historic dogma " , all depends of each one of us MUSIC reproduction targets in our room/system and I let or I think that I left very clear my main room/system ( maybe I did not or my explanation in that latest post was not clear . ) target where no matter what the VIV can’t help me ( unfortunatelly ) to stay truer/nearer to the recording. Look, my target is that the cartridges can pick-up as much information from the groove LP modulations as it can due that that MUSIC information is what stays in the whole recording proccess. To reach those first target is that the cartridge stylus reads each single groove modulation in centered position in that groove. In theory you can reach that only through a LT tonearm design and through the years the second best way ( nearer tracking angle to that centered stylus position. AS nearer the best as away the worse. ) to reach that target is using a pivot tonearm through Löfgreen alignments ( nearer centered stylus groove position. ). All these are facts with measurements and the like.Here my ears not decide,common sense tells me ( and I think almost no one here can’t prove I’m just wrong.) is the rigth way to reach my main TARGET. Different audiophile targets could means different alternatives. In all these LP play system proccess Accuracy is way important to mantain every developed single kind of distortion system source at minimum, not an easy task. R.
|
@reimarc I am myself a long term user of Idler drive TT's that have undergone modification to substantially change what was original, even though on the 401 this was mainly the Platter Bearing Assembly, the Lenco is a PTP Solid Nine which is still owned. Today I am a DD user as the main TT, but also have a bespoke designed Tonearm, produced by an individual, who I am sure will be as captivating in the sharing of their TA knowledge as has the Viv Designer, Mr. Koichiro Akimoto. I have also tried to gather a little interest within my local HiFi Group on the Miyaji MEMS cartridge, which has already created a similar content that follows the Viv from onlooker ( those with no experience). Your offer to visit and have a experience is very very Kind, to one person the encounter could prove to be a experience that stimulates change. I am one individual with this as the outcome of a visit to a individual who has been very creative in realizing their ideas for what a audio system can sound like. The experience in relation to Analogue as a Source has been the best to date from numerous encounters and paved the way for gaining the full benefits from follow up changes being made. |
Raul, this is a bit unhinged. Are you suggesting I have condoned an "insult" against Löfgren just because I have suggested I might try an experiment with an underhung arm? It's precisely because of this level of incoherent debate that I am interested in finding out for myself. I would have thought you would encourage the experiment, secure in your expectation that I will report that it sounds awful. |
Raul, Please convey my apologies to the Lofgren family for any perceived but unintended insult, but I also do not think it is insulting to Lofgren to point out that his work was primarily aimed at solving the geometry problem of how to minimize TAE while using a pivoted tonearm of manageable length. His solution is to offset the headshell at an angle. Is it not otherwise accurate to say that he did not envision modern stereo LPs nor modern exotic stylus shapes? Lofgren was working with the technology he had in front of him in 1939 or thereabouts. No sin in that. Puh-leeze! It's rather ironic that you take offense on behalf of Lofgren, considering that you have insulted so many living, breathing audiophiles on these forums, intentionally or not. (I love you anyway, but be real.) |
Dear Reimarc, Thank you for this report. You or a member of your family must speak Japanese, because in my indirect dealings with Akimoto-san, I learned that he does not communicate well in English. Nevertheless, I too bought my Viv directly from Akimoto-san under the auspices of my son, who has lived in Tokyo for about 18 years and is fluent in all aspects of the Japanese language. Like you, my son also found Akimoto-san to be a very nice, soft-spoken, and humble man. His character also came through to me in the context of short emails he and I were able to exchange directly. Apart from our shared appreciation of the Viv tonearm, we have in common the fact that I too am a (retired) scientist (in my case an MD molecular biologist/virologist), and I too have my Viv mounted on the deck of a Lenco. Mine is an OEM Lenco except I threw away the plinth, the bearing, and the tonearm and mounted the remaining parts in slate (which was in vogue at the time among gurus on Lenco Heaven). I also use a PTP top plate and a huge aftermarket bearing made in England (by a guy I only remember as "Jeremy"). I drive the motor with a Phoenix Engineering power supply controlled by the PE Roadrunner tachometer. The platter has been painted externally with vibration-reducing paint and further damped by O-rings around its perimeter. (The idea for that came direct from the late, great Win Tinnon.) One virtue of the tonearm is the very functional cue-ing device, about as good as any I have ever experienced. Also, I have never had a problem with setting VTF. I wonder what model of Viv you chose. I have the aluminum 9-incher, aka the "9HA". I have never been a fan of carbon fiber in audio, with the exception of carbon fiber headshells. For several cartridges, I use Yamamoto or Oyaide carbon fiber headshells in lieu of the Viv Nelson Hold headshell. The Lenco ensemble drives a Manley Steelhead which drives the built in direct-drive amplifiers of Beveridge 2SW speakers supplemented below 80Hz with a pair of Transmission Line woofers. |
I met with Mr. Koichiro Akimoto and his family near Kamakura during my trip to Japan in March. We discussed the Rigid Float arm at length. He has a Masters degree of engineering of the University of Tokyo, Japan's most prestigious school. He explained to me many parameters in his design and why he thinks the older tonearm designs had their emphasis wrong, when it comes to acoustically correct record playing. I must admit, many of his arguments went straight over my head, as mechanical engineering is not my knowledge base at all. But as a scientist, I value experiment over dogma any time. So, I bought the arm from him on the spot (for a very good price, mind you, the $ / ¥ conversion rate playing well in my favor), with the promise that I could return it for a full refund if I don't like it. He is a really nice guy, btw., rather shy but very enthusiastic about his research and invention - as much as his advanced Parkinson's allows. Long story short: I installed the arm on my PTP Audio Lenco-revival TT (hugely recommended, btw.), replacing my old and trusted "Woody" arm by Pete Riggle up in WA. The correct setting up is actually straight forward, but the setting of the correct VTF is somewhat tricky: I had to wait for a few seconds before taking my weight measurements, as the arm indeed floats in a cup filled with ferro-magnetic fluid. It is also very light by itself, which needed steady fingers on my part. However, after several email exchanges with Akimoto-san and helpful tips, I managed to get it steady and ready to play. My cartridge needs only 1.5 grams VTF, which might also have complicated things (Miyaji MEMS, by itself a true revolution). Well, what can I say: this arm completely disappears; it seems to get completely out of the sound-picture, letting the Miyaji do its magic completely uninfluenced. When compared with the "Woody" (which I really loved up to this point), everything appears "clearer", more transparent and natural, without sacrificing anything, same rhythmic drive (Lenco!), super bass, spatial placement and contour, etc. etc.. In comparison, while equally dynamic and "clear" in its presentation, the "Woody" all of sudden sounded "euphonic", still lovely and pleasing, but with rounded edges. With the Rigid Float I felt like a layer of old varnish had been removed from the musical painting. But nothing else! No idiosyncrasies that would scream "new tonearm" at me. As I said before, it completely got out of the way. I think the complete acoustic decoupling by the fluid bed plays an important role here, but most likely also the unusual geometry of the arm. I strongly recommend to forget historic dogma in this case and let your ears decide, which is what we all should be doing, lest this hobby turns quickly into a religion. And no: it never even crossed my mind to return this masterpiece! (Miyaji MEMS cartridge, PTPAudio Solid 9 TT with external speed control, SUPRATEK Grange Pre, Linkwitz Powerbox (1 per channel) active crossover/amp, Linkwitz 521.4 Mg speakers, MSB Discrete DAC, Apple MacBook Air). If you happen to be in the SF Bay Area, you might want to stop by my house for a listening: always welcome! |
Dear @dover and friends : " if accurate alignment is your primary goal, ", well I don’t know other audiophiles but accurated alignment is the first step of other important steps in the whole cartridge/tonearm set-up that can puts me nearer/truer to the recording. Why choosed I a different first step other than the one that gives zero tracking distortion as the LT tonearms?, mainly because does not exist the perfect tonearm and through my several first hand experiences with LT that I owned it made everything fine but the low bass. So I choosed my trade-off in benefit of whole MUSIC sound and choosed and never came back to the pivot tonearms using as first set up step the Löfgren alignments and let explain my sense/mind about and all steps down there to be nearer to the recording ( the Löfgreen alignments are the ones to zero tracking error/distortion to the LT designs: are the ones that puts the cartrudge stylus nearer to groove modulations tangentially. VIV is way way off that main target no matter what. ): After the Löfgreen alignment set up we have to fine tune that alignment along other critical set up parameters as: VTF/VTA/SRA/AZ/AS/ZENT and the like. All those steps puts me nearer and truer to the recording that’s my main MUSIC reproduction target in my room/system. The VIV puts any audiophile far away from the recording but any one has different room/system targets.
Btw: " aware of any negative comments on underhung tonearms voiced by either M Kelly or Dave Garretson ", sorry lew but I never posted that you need to read again why I mentioned to those gentlemans. That " vitriol " you posted is not vitriol but and opinion against your several times " insult " to LÖFgreen that obviously for you and dogberry is just ok and not for me. Re-read my post about.
R.
|
Lew, I meant that with the bearings being aligned as they are, any up and down motion will involve not just moving the bearing that allows vertical movement, it will also mean moving the horizontal bearing. So moving both ball races instead of one should double the friction to overcome, requiring more force to do so. By the third law that will increase VTF. I'm not involving anti-skate or stylus friction here. |
Dogberry, a warp, or any other change in stylus velocity which is actually happening throughout the course of replay, has no effect on the friction force. The equation for that force is simply the coefficient of friction for the two materials that are in contact multiplied by the normal force that is causing the contact. “Normal” here means the perpendicular component of that force. While I completely agree that one who purchases an underhung tonearm will have a certain “expectation bias” toward forming a positive opinion, it seems a little far fetched to conclude that all the positive reviews, even from reviewers who haven’t bought the tonearm, could be fairly attributable to expectation bias. |
I'm half regretting waking up this thread, especially as some find it hard to be civil. The fact is that I have not yet seen someone who has owned an underhung arm say anything bad about them. Those who do own one, seem to be unanimous in their praise. Perhaps that is what we should expect, human nature being what it is. As a hypothesis, it is not inconceivable that anti-skate (which is, at best, only set correctly for one groove on an entire LP) is a greater cause of distortion than tracking error. It should be easy to tell with an experiment. My hesitation comes down to the observation that the arm I would use has its bearings aligned with an offset headshell and cartridge. It will not stop the arm moving as it needs to, but it might increase friction. All tonearms permit horizontal movement as they track, and vertical motion is allowed to cope with warps in the record. My experiment would mean that a warp cause movement in both sets of bearings, thus increasing friction and and momentarily changing the VTF applied to the record. Not desirable as a permanent way of using the arm, but would the putative improvement from the underhang outweigh this factor? If I don't know that, I can't draw any useful conclusion from a negative result, and I don't want to muddy the waters with a poorly designed experiment. |
Isn't the experiences acquired through long term association with using the Vinyl LP as a Source, leading to growing in understanding about Geometries, and Mechanical Function. Especially becoming mindful of the importance of the minute detail requirements for each, that when adequately addressed, do make differences easily perceivable to when an adequate address was not in place. I don't know anybody who has been close to a Vinyl Source that does not have a very decent understanding of the importance of the above. The question is, has it been experienced in place in ones own system, or is it a Lip Service showing there is some form of a understanding. |
Personally I'm not interested in pursuing the Viv, but for all the naysayers, if you find the Viv concept so egregious, why are you still running any pivot arm. A linear tracker has 0 tracking error, no skating forces to contend with, and if accurate alignment is your primary goal, then any arm other than a linear tracking, or tangential tracking, is a failure.
|
Will I be burned at the stake for witchcraft? I am going to buy some asbestos pants. I do own and regularly use 5 other tonearms, all of which are conventional pivoted overhung types, some that you like and some that you dislike. Your vitriol is precisely why I have kept quiet about the Viv and will go back to observing that policy. But if you ask me, I am going to say it is very good with a wide variety of cartridges. Take it or leave it. Also, I have yet to find a negative review of the Viv on the internet, and some of those reviews are written by persons with a good reputation for intelligence. By the way, I am not aware of any negative comments on underhung tonearms voiced by either M Kelly or Dave Garretson, with whom I am quite friendly, because we both own the Atma-sphere MP1. Since you are apparently one who saves and catalogues responses by frequent posters, like myself, can you quote one of theirs to that effect? And for the last time, I never ever said not to use a Lofgren alignment. Of course, that is what to do if you are using a pivoted overhung tonearm. That’s what I do, too. My point was (I feel like shouting) that if your cartridge has even a one degree zenith error, then you had better account for that in implementing any of the standard alignment algorithms (usually be twisting the cartridge in the headshell so that the two contact patches are perpendicular to the groove walls), because even that small error will screw up the alignment if you ignore it. (Do you get it now, theophile?) Ask Dave Slagle (an acknowledged smart guy whom you choose to ignore) about the effects of zenith error on alignment and the distortion caused by zenith error. He has evaluated it in far more detail than I. And he demonstrated both the effect of zenith error and the cure in my home system. It was rather astonishing. Again, this latter has nothing whatever to do with the Viv tonearm, although a zenith error will also affect an underhung tonearm, albeit not as drastically. |
Dear @theophile : No, he does not wrote that way but looks as he implicate that and many other things. Go figure and in good shape with lewm:
this is not the first time that he made a critic against an analog audio world icon of the Löfgreen caliber, he made it ( against Löfgreen ) at least over 5-6 times in Agon different threads when in no other internet audio forum some one different gentleman posted something similar not even reviewers or gentlemans as bAERWALD, sTEVENSON, Bauer, Pisha whom made it its own alignment calculations that at the end mathematicaly are similar to the Löfgreen alignments where no one of them never made a critic to any of the 90+ Löfgreen white papers pages. Not only that but 50+ tonearms designers/manufacturers choice/reference was and is Löfgreen alignments. I know for sure that almost all of us are amateur audiophiles with out the scientist levels of Löfgreen. I know that audiophiles with a huge high technical knowledge levels than me as B.Ellison or M.Kelly or D.Garretson and other never made that kind of critic that’s ( for me ) at the border of insult.
In the other side, the "stupid " nayseyers as me only say that the VIV tonearm has higher tracking distortions that at the same time develops higher THD and IMD against other normal pivoted tonearms with offset-angle. I’m not touching thesubjective facts because every one likes what they likes I’m only refering to objective facts where the VIV has not lower tracking distortion levels or at least the VIV designer never proved or any other audiophile with facts and away from that : " I like it ". because this is not the issue. Theophile so we can stay calm using Löfgreen alignments. Don't worry.
R.
|
Dave, in line with what you say about the placing of the single null point, I related earlier my experience where I had gotten sloppy about using the supplied template to align the Viv; I was slapping cartridges in there without checking with the template. Until I got to the point where I re-installed a cartridge that earlier had sounded great in the Viv, and I was underwhelmed. This drove me to check alignment, and I found it was grossly wrong because the cartridge was in a different headshell. When I corrected alignment using the Viv template, it came back to life. Before correction, the null point was on the label, way off. |
My take on it is Just Do It....I think the flaw here is without actually doing the test, to assume that *IF* it makes a sonic difference that the 'mis-aligned' bearing is a liability and not an asset. It seems a common experience that in trying to do comparisons, the perceived sonic difference in two tests is not confined to / caused by the singular parameter being examined. This discussion kinda got to this point from the categorical insistance that the high TAE of an underhung arm means they are a flawed design and must be awful sounding. This coming from a group that has never heard one of the arms in question. Based on a long list of anecdotal reports that this may not be the case. This puts me in lew's corner looking at the other parameters for possible 'alternative explanations' that may help paint a clearer picture of how what we hear aligns with what we think. dave
|
@dogberry I have made it known within this thread previously that a similar trial as your own is intended to be experienced on a New Tonearm Design I am very familiar with. I am not sure when this is to occur, but it will, the designer / builder of the Tonearm is inquisitive enough to want to know how the experience will impact on them, I am keen to see how the experience impacts on me as well. A mod' to a Headshell is easily achievable, nothing ventured, nothing gained. Your thoughts on what you experienced even with the proposed notion the Geometry might not be ideal, should not be a reason to deter, is the not the whole debate about overhung / underhung all about the Geometry being incorrect on one type and the compensation measures in place on the other type being negative influence ??? |
Hey Lew, Will you accept the possibility that due to geometry differences (overhung vs. underhung) different metrics may dominate the sonic behavior of each? I experimented with this a bit last year and found that TAE dominates the overhung sonic signature but 4X+ the TAE in the underhung case was not only listenable but enjoyable. To me this was a clear case that X° of TAE in an overhung arm ≠ X° of TAE in an underhung arm and makes any comparisons based on solely that parameter flawed. The one clear take away from the underhung experiment was that the position of the single null point was critical and should be placed near where the inner null typically falls. dave |
theophile, For those who are adherent to the gospel about minimizing tracking angle error (TAE) at all costs, the terms "distortion" and TAE are interchangeable. In other words, they (and apparently you) use the two terms as synonyms, where TAE is a subset of all causes of distortion. So it is no wonder that the Radiotron book conflates the two terms. But overhung tonearms with headshell offset trade off low TAE for a large increase in skating force, and a skating force that changes in magnitude, up and down and up, etc, across the surface of the LP. In 1940, when Baerwald, Lofgren, etc, published their papers on overhang and offset angle, they were just solving a geometry problem. They had no knowledge of stereo or modern stylus shapes (all styli were spherical) or even vinyl records. The majority of music lovers were still using wind-up "Victrola"s to play mono shellacs in that era. You have to ask yourself, could it be that skating force (and the application of Anti-Skate) is more pernicious than TAE, or at least similar in its negative effects, for the performance of a modern cartridge with an exotic stylus shape trying to produce a stereo image from information encoded on the sides of a V, rather than on the floor of a mono 78? Furthermore, the underhung tonearm with no headshell offset angle does give a single null point where there is also no skating force at about the midpoint of the LP surface; at that moment, the underhung tonearm behaves exactly like a linear tracker. Immediately before and after that null point is reached, the TAE is actually in the same ball park with that of a conventional overhung tonearm, with the added benefit of much lower skating force. So knowing all that, is it so preposterous to think that there may be some merit to the idea of an underhung tonearm? I own two copies of the Radiotron Designer’s Handbook, and I have learned from the book often in studying circuit design, but in this case their heads are or were in the sand, in my opinion. For me, the most glaring fact is that the naysayers say an underhung tonearm properly set up would be a disaster with high distortion based only on TAE. If you listen to such a tonearm, the very first thing you would absolutely have to admit is that there is NO such disastrous distortion. This is regardless of whether you go on to love the tonearm or not. Doesn’t that simple observation make you want to think more? If not, I cannot help you. Oh and by the way, I always forget the fact that most cartridges have some zenith angle error. This is error in the way the stylus is mounted on the end of the cantilever. An imaginary line connecting the centers of the two contact patches on the stylus tip must be perpendicular to the groove walls. If there is any deviation from that standard, then all your or my best efforts at alignment according to any algorithm are for naught. Turns out that the few companies that make all the cantilevers and styli observe a +/-5 degree standard for zenith angle error. Even a one or two degree error will screw up Lofgren, etc. |
The same is the case with the Yamaha YSA-2 straight no offset underhung arm. Yamaha commisioned a variation of the YSA-1. The problem is that the bearing yoke of the YSA-1 is offset like the headshell and in specifying the YSA-2 no offset headshell underhung variant, failed to unspecify the offset bearing yoke. I have seen one rabid proponent of underhung arms post scans of the RCA Radiotron manual about the underhung and overhung/offset. The moron fails to point out the RCA book shows that the distortion for underhung is about 8 times higher nor does he mention that it says in the text that if the undehung method is to approach high fidelity standards the length of the arm needs to be 17 inches. Kinda puts it in perspective. |
Doggie, cleeds makes a very good point. Note that the bearing assembly at the pivot of the SME tonearm is offset to match the headshell offset angle. That would confound any attempt to use the SME as a test bed for underhung-ness. You could try it but probably should not generalize from such an experiment. As for me, I continue to enjoy the 9-inch Viv I bought in Tokyo last year. |
