Hold on Raul. I do not use a processor to correct colorations in the recording. I use a processor to correct amplitude and timing problems with my system and room, plus using it for crossovers. The was a time when I has a specific target curve to minimize sibilance in some recordings but since I have moved to the Sound Labs I never use it. Once the system is set up I never change anything unless something changes like a new amp of my wife moving the sofa. Once you know what you are doing (took me 5 years to figure it out) it is a set it and forget it issue. Now, I have a new processor coming, the DEQX Pre 8 and I am going to add another amp to drive the SL's high frequency transformer, probably the Bricasti M25. So, there will be a period if instability until I figure it all out.
@lewm : Please don’t misunderstood my words. I posted that I’m trying to understand/figure out or look a " rational " explanation to know why you like it, not other gentlemans but you. I’m not trying to diminish your self capacities or your system, I really trust in you and that’s why I’m following posting in the thread At this moment my take is simple: the cartridge does not knows what it’s tracking does not knows ( and does not cares. ) about that angle " error ". What is doing is just tracking the LPs groove modulations and that it’s doing with no audible distortions. Audiophiles like me are questioning that high tracking angle error and yes it’s a high angle error against an Löfgren A/B alignment but here we have a way different kind of alignment that necessary will produce a special/different kind of quality sound levels a sound NEW for you and other VIV owners. So you are listen to a total NEW experience ( I could say new " LPs " ) and I believe you when you said that like you. New LPs because it's your first time to listen those modulations with different angle stylus tip tracking as what you and many of us are accustomed to listen our LPs. That different TAE in the VIV is big ( vs normal alignments. ) but seems not big enough to cause mistracking or audible distortions, the cartridge tracking capacities ( yours and others. ) have no problem to track almost all LP’s groove modulations mounted in the VIV. Yes still untruer to the recording but if we have not audible higher tracking distortions and or you don't detect yet that are " missing " tiny kind of signal recorded information then ( as alwaYS ) IS A PERSONAL CHOICE. Could be a good thing to calculate the VIV tracking distortion levels.
In this alignment subject I'm orthodox/dogmatic due that my main target is to stay truer to the recording, so till today no VIV for me. If I want it to " improve "/change the LPs colorations I'm accustom too then I will follow the @mijostyn example/experience adding a digital processor/Eq. to my system that I'm not yet willing to do it.
R.
|
| Post removed |
@lewm : It is totally obvous for any audiophile that that " special "/different sound quality is due to tonearm/cartridge big angle error over the LP groove modulations.
I mentioned that bearing low tonearm friction only because the designer says it's one of his main targets but for me that he said that is not totally trust information but untrusty one when he does not shows the tonearm measured bearing friction and due that he only " talk and talk " permit me to think that maybe he never measured and only a good " desire ". Anyway, the real fact is that you like that special sound ( as you named. ) as many other owners even that the reproduction is " untruer " to the recording in comparison with a normal tonearm.
R. |
I'm with @lewm It is a wonderful place to arrive at during an investigation, when all that is wanted is to forget the lot and just kick back and listen to the result. |
Dear @lewm : My toughts about that headshell and damping issues are trying to understand why with that calculated ( wbf ) " huge " angle error you like it. So with the usual headshell and Löfgren A/B real alignment a comparison could tell us or put some " light " why you and other audiophiles like it. With out this kind of comparison we just almost never know for sure. Common sense tells me that with a normal alignment will like you even more and then the overall VIV damping could be what helps a lot for better quality performance. I think that when you have the time can be interesting wich changes in the sound makes with out O rings, here too common sense says will be a quality changes and the one that can tell us is you.
Well, only my thoughts, R. |
Correct. If you use the headshell supplied with the tonearm, it would not be possible to twist the cartridge with respect to the long axis of the headshell, unless you somehow modify the headshell. However, the tonearm accepts all standard headshells, so it might be possible to use a conventional headshell and twist the cartridge at an angle so as to effect a "conventional" geometry, with the stylus overhanging the spindle. Also, there exist a very few headshells that incorporate the offset angle into the headshell mount, meant for mounting on a straight pipe arm wand. I think Garrard made a tonearm like that. Such a headshell could also be used. As to your first question, no, I have not removed the O-ring dampers from the arm wand. |
@lewm : Do you tested the tonearm with out O rings ? So, for your last post means that there is no way to turn the cartridge in the tonearm headshell. Sometimes and depending of the headshell the cartridge can turn just a little but permits it but not with the VIV.
R. |
Dear @lewm : " main goal was lowest possible friction. Hence the pivot floating on an oil bath. " So,what you are experienced with is that the arm wand is " truly free " to make sudden horizontal/vertical movements with even lower true unipivot friction and with out the unipivot side effects? That is that the tonearm hast the fast controled response ( to any other tonearm you own or experienced.) to what the cartridge modulation rides ask for during playback?
In the other side that oil floating bearing with " no instability " works as whole tonearm damping other than the O rings and that kind of damping by my first hand experiences Audiogon Discussion Forum has the capacity and could " kills " almost any resonance/distortion developed by cartridge/tonearmTT that open sound presentation to a new/different " flavor " of what you are listening That " kills " resonances/distortions could means a clean and pristine sound color. I don't know if the tonearm could permit it but should be interesting to mount the cartridge with Löfgren A/B or nearer to it and listen it. Using damping in the " right "/adequated way can makes " magic " especially in this tonearm/cartridge application. Resonances/distortions are the enemy to beat it and damping is one way in tha direction.
R. R. |
" Likely you cannot either,..." That issue has no priority inside my MUSIC sound reproduction ( I mean that that comparison because TAE is inside the priority due to its direct relationship during cartridge groove modulations rides. ), so sincerely I don’t really care to much about that question but for all what I posted the answer is obvious. Which your answer/opinion to your question. Maybe obvious too: " None of us can have an opinion ..."
" in which case please avoid insulting me. " I did not insult you, I only posted a different main targets that just are different from yours.
R. |
Pindac, What I pointed is that in his interview posted on Youtube in Japanese but with English subtitles, Akimoto-san (inventor of the Viv Rigid Float tonearm) says his main goal was lowest possible friction. Hence the pivot floating on an oil bath. Just exactly why it is magnetic oil I still do not understand, but I would guess that he uses magnetic attraction to stabilize the assembly. Surprisingly, to me, he makes no mention of the underhang geometry in that short video. It might be interesting to note that when my son was conversing with Akimoto-san prior to my purchase, he asked my son why I wanted one. By this I think he was genuinely curious about the genesis of my interest. As far as I am concerned, I plan to continue to listen to this tonearm and to compare various cartridges for performance in the Viv vs in one of my conventional pivoted tonearms, using the same turntable and the same system in each arm of the study. I’ll post my findings as they happen, but I am not interested in arguing with anyone about the basic principles involved. I have no reason to believe I could change anyone's mind, nor is that my main goal. |
| Post removed |
A link to a Forum where others have shared their experiences having ventured towards using the 'Viv' or as some refer to it the 'RF'. There is plenty to read, 'Shakti' has a vast experience of trying out Cart's in a host of ancillaries. Much of what is being wrote, does not detract from the recent reports being made on the 'Gon'. https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/viv-laboratory-rigid-float-tonearm-first-experience.25400/ |
@dogberry I have not suggested any of the Mechanical Interfaces on the 'Viv' are 'Mysterious' but only not 'Typical'. In my case I know quite a lot about the concept and once expressed and interest in producing a robust version of the 'Viv' Floating Pivot. I am treading carefully, as the subject can kick off another how the Math to prove your point scenario. There is no shortage of 'across forum threads', that cover damping, where Oil usage to control energy transferal within a TA are discussed. Designs for Tonearms using a Oil Reservoir at a Mechanical Interface, range from the commonly (most likely because Big Brand Names use it) seen and typical Rear End Trough and Paddle, Oil Floating Pivot ( Lesser Seen ), Encapsulated Oil Floating Pivot (maybe only the 'Viv'), Headshell Oil Damping (very rare). In my Travels and meeting with other Audio Enthusiasts I have been able to be demo'd Oil Floating Pivot Designs. On a few occasions I have been demo'd these on a 'same system' in comparison to same model TT's (Not Same Cart' or Plinthed). From recollection the finished design was inspiring and was able to create good discussion with the producer, from a recollection of the sonic, there was not a presentation I could become attracted to, and the ideas I once had about producing a 12" Floating Pivot TA were quenched. Now @lewm has pointed out there is a info discovered that leans toward the suggestion, the design was born with the intent to create a 'ultra low friction'. This leaves me much more convinced, there is more than just Geometry being responsible for the positive impression being made. If ultra low friction is an achieved mechanical property. As a result of my most recent TA experiences, I am confident in my claiming that audibly, there are substantial sonic benefits to be had when this condition is achieved, it is knowing about this condition and the audibly sonic benefits experienced, that encouraged me to have the use of my TA's (that as models have a lot of supporters) Superseded. To achieve ultra low friction on a conventional TA Design requires many man hours to produce the condition. I am also of the understanding (through receiving demo's) it is the employing the follow up treatments, that substantially emphasise the sonic qualities that can be achieved through the preparation work. Maybe the 'Viv' Designer has found a way achieve a reasonably affordable TA that boasts an 'ultra low friction', with a methodology that does not require excessive man hours, or excessive costings to achieve the objective? On this matter, for those who are not knowing, the experience has to be had, just as @lewm has ventured into, (Nothing Ventured - Nothing Gained).
|
@pindac Was that a 'yes' or a 'no' to my question to you - that you referred to the floating oil bearing? Mysterious "Mechanical Interfaces function" isn't quite explicit. |
It was a question, not an opinion.
Questions, honestly asked, tend to do so.
Careful. It is apparent you are not an English speaker, and you don't understand what you have just intimated! You might be surprised to hear that I do understand analog reproduction is complicated. I'd be grateful if you weren't so condescending in your assumptions that you know better than anyone else. You might even try to answer my question, directly. Is tracking angle error a worse thing to hear than the effects of anti-skate? None of us can have an opinion, if we are honest, unless we have compared an underhung tonearm with a conventional one. That was my point. I cannot answer it, so I asked. Likely you cannot either, in which case please avoid insulting me.
|
I found a video on Youtube that shows the pivot mechanism in action, totally removed from the shroud that otherwise makes it impossible to see it. The problem is there is only one view and no narrative. Just go to Youtube and search on "Viv Float tonearm", and you can find the video. The arm wand appears to be mounted on a rectangular platform that floats on the magnetic oil bath. Lateral motion of the platform appears to be prohibited by a raised lip around the edges of the circular oil bath. This physical arrangement conforms to my findings with pulling, pushing, or twisting the arm wand; it’s quite stable and quite low in friction. (I also found a video of an interview (in Japanese) with the designer, Akimoto-san. It seems that ultra-low friction was a major design goal. He does not say anything about geometry.) But to me, that is all beside the point. The point for me is the underhung geometry. Of course, it is impossible to separate the two oddities of this tonearm when assessing its sonic virtues. |
@dogberry I am suggesting there is a obvious difference of how the Mechanical Interfaces function on the 'Viv' design, in comparison to other more conventional designs. It also seems from the literature, materials chosen have a secondary contribution, as energy produced is specifically transferred into the material for dissipation. I am not suggesting the material selected is solely responsible, but the difference as a Mechanical Interfaces function, which is not Typical as a Interface, can be producing a change to the sonic, that has a noticeable attraction to the end user. |
Dear @dogberry : "" The question that should be central to all of this is which is the greater sin: TAE or added anti-skate force? ""
Perhaps for you and other gentlemans that could think like you because for me it’s ( as always ) what is right or wrong and the why’s about. Your question came with out facts/why’s. The main issue/subject for any cartridge/pivoted tonearm/LT is to pick up " all " the recorded audio signal in those LP groove modulations. That means that before any other questions it need it to pick up that signal as nearer is posible and after that comes several set up parameters as : SRA, VTA, AZ, AS, Zenith , ideal resonance FR and the like.
As you I can ask: which is more important AS or VTA or tonearm damping or aluminum vs boron cantilevers or kind of tonearm bearing or tonearm build materials, ? ? ? Analog is not as " easy " as your question, never is. Full of imperfections that when you want to fix one of those imperfections you " touch " almost all other in a bad way. Please use common sense about.
R.
|
Sorry, perhaps I described it incorrectly. But my question to @pindac still stands. (As does the rest.) |
I won't get into the meat of your post, but the pivot is not a "floating golf ball". Because it is totally enclosed, in order to keep the magnetic oil bath from spilling, I cannot really see what's going on there, but I suspect it is a constrained unipivot, constrained by magnetism. It's definitely constrained, because you cannot jostle the arm wand by twisting, pulling, or pushing, so long as you use reasonable force. |
@pindac when you wrote:
Are you suggesting it is the floating golfball in oil that is responsible for the sound that owners like, as it sounds like you don't think it is the geometry? If so, you might be right, but I'm doubtful. I don't want to start another, separate debate, but I suspect the various sorts of bearings and pivots available have smaller effects than a radically different tonearm geometry. The question that should be central to all of this is which is the greater sin: TAE or added anti-skate force? And the only difficulty in answering what should be a simple question is that so few people have an underhung tonearm. Is that because they sound terrible, or because we have misunderstood something basic, that was not even considered when the architects of conventional tonearm protocols were at work? Just imagine the fun if the sainted Lofgren was given a blind listening test! |
@lewm : " the theory would predict that the Viv should sound grossly distorted (your term) "
Not really a theory but imagination of some gentlemans.
R. |
Pindac, what you want to do, which is a logical way to compare overhang to underhang, seems to have been done by Intact Audio with a Schroeder tonearm. Perhaps Dave (aka Intact Audio) can say more. I think the headshell is held at an angle, on some Schroeder tonearms, by a single screw, making it easy to set offset to zero. Then you’d just have to move the pivot back away from the spindle to achieve underhang. |
The most recent challenges are based on the very obvious differences in the Geometries selected. As said before I have received enough information through this Thread to have been stimulated and influenced, resulting in the request being made to a Tonearm designer to incorporate a underhung design into a upcoming comparison and evaluation of Tonearms. Even when the Geometry of the New Design Tonearm is one that is very closely matched to the 'Viv', the experience will not in any way allow for assuming the Tonearm resembles the 'Viv' in use. There will be quite obvious differences in the Mechanical Interfaces used for each design. What will be learnt is how the conventional Geometry used on a Tonearm of a particular design, compares to the same design Tonearm with an alternative Geometry. I am today, as a result of having encountered experiences gathered over the period of multiple years, left with a certainty that when Tonearms are experienced in use using the alignment Geometries from Lofgren, Baerwald or Stevenson, it is neither of these alignments that are responsible for showing out the noticeable differences that can be detected between presentations. Setting to one side the variations of Cart' and devices in use for a system, that can easily be suggested as accountable for a producing a noticeable difference, there is also the Mechanical Structure of the Tonearm and the methods used to produce the Mechanical Interfaces in a Tonearm. I am today very interested in Tonearms that have been designed to be with a extremely low friction impact on the mechanical interfaces, the Tonearm I have in use at present has many man hours required to create this condition. I can't but help feel that the positive impression being made from use of the 'Viv' by @lewm, is additionally influenced by experiencing a Tonearm with an alternative Mechanical Interface, inclusive of methods for transferring/dissipating energy not seen in a conventional design. As for Geometry options, I am using for more that 8 Years and remaining contented using the Stevenson Geometry. I don't feel the need to revisit any other similar Geometries as means to replace Stevenson, but do like the idea of experiencing a Geometry that is quite different in concept.
|
And my point, which apparently you are intent upon ignoring, is that the theory would predict that the Viv should sound grossly distorted (your term) compared to any decent overhung pivoted tonearm with headshell offset, and it does not, in my hands in my system to my ears. (And also apparently to many other pairs of ears.) That proposition leaves aside the question of whether the Viv is better or not, compared to conventional tonearms. You are cordially invited to come have a listen, if you happen to be in the Washington, DC, area. From now on, I promise to credit Lofgren and only Lofgren with the algorithm that led to modern pivoted tonearm design. I don't care who gets the credit, and it has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand. That is what I meant by having no dog in that fight. It's an aphorism used by native English speakers. My real point is that his work was to solve the problem of how to minimize TAE with a pivoted tonearm. That's purely a question of geometry. |
@lewm : Where posted I the VIV should sounds awful? what I posted is:
" When yo said that your other 3 cartridges sounds better in reality is not true BETTER but different because its stylus tip angle is running the grooves in way different angle and a " little " more away of what was recordd "
Where posted I? : ""by insinuating that I am not a qualified listener or that my equipment is not qualified to reveal obvious problems due to excessive TAE. ""
The main issue is this:
" Löfgren’s paper is the earliest work which gives an analytical treatment of tracking distortion and develops a new optimum alignment method to minimise it. "
Cartridge tracking distortion level has a direct interrelationship with the cartridge tracking angle and as near this tracking angle is to tangential as nearer will be the stylus tip to pick up what " really " are recorded in those groove LP modulations.. Other tonearm " aberrations "/colorations/distortions developed by each single different tonearm design is other matters as is its set up. Everything the same Löfgren alignment first than all puts us nearer to the recording other than tangetial designs. What could happens after that is another kind of subjects, because first that all is to pick up those grooves information in the " nearer the rigth " way.
" I have no dog in that fight. " well, you are seen a " fight " where did not exit or existed: NEVER existed because Löfgren: " he was the " inventor/creator " only with no one else. " Can you see a fight there?
R.
|
Dear Raul, I was wondering what took you so long to comment on my report. I am trying to take the line of least resistance, which is this: If minimizing TAE at the expense of all other possible sources of aberrant forces was so vitally important, then the Viv tonearm ought to sound awful, or at least obviously worse than any reasonably well aligned conventional pivoted tonearm. But we have testimony from many others and now also my own testimony, that it does not sound awful or even worse than any of my four other conventional pivoted tonearms, using any of 3 cartridges that I have owned for a long time and heard previously on good conventional pivoted tonearms. I have no interest in convincing you of anything, but you cannot explain away my results by insinuating that I am not a qualified listener or that my equipment is not qualified to reveal obvious problems due to excessive TAE. (Well, maybe you privately think my Beveridge-based system is not good enough, but most would not.) As many others have tried to get across to you, "I like it", is not a trivial quality when evaluating audio products. Because after all, why are you using what you use? Because "you like it". (Yes, I know you believe you have developed superior listening skills that enable you to choose components that contribute least to "distortions". Standing on that high horse, you can always dismiss commentary that runs against your strong belief system.) Anyway, I hold you in high regard, but I am not surprised at your comments here. Quibbling about who did what, Lofgren vs Baerwald, or whoever, is totally beside the point. If you think Lofgren should receive most of the credit for the idea of stylus overhang cum headshell offset angle, that is fine with me. I have no dog in that fight. |
Dear @lewm , OP and friends: That some audiophiles as lewm like the VIV " sound " is just anecdotal and does not means the VIV design play performance is better that all the other pivoted designs due that the VIV design is a WRONG design is a wisecrack that makes money. Some questions comes to my mind: why are we looking for system room treatment? why we take care to match speaker/amps or cartridges/tonearm match? why this IC cable over the other? why we choose an electrical special source item? and why, why why? At the end what we are doing with is trying to put colorations/distortions at minimum to preserve the cartridge signal integrity We are not doing that to achieve higher colorations/distortions. Maybe some of us do it but not on porpose.
" And so their papers introduced the idea of having the cartridge overhang the spindle and then twisting the headshell with respect to a straight line emanating from the pivot. They did this work during what was still a very primitive era in home audio. Stereo did not exist, and most disc players were still of the wind-up variety. Many still used wholly mechanical Victrolas. " Lew, for years you are posting the same as a some kind of citic for the alignment solutions and over time you never gave any idea to change that very old kind of alignments that gives certainty of the tracking distortion levels and that puts those kind of distortions at minimum for the cartridge pick up in the best way what is recorded in the LP groove modulation. Only LT tonearms can makes a better job on that specific issue. Obviously VIV can’t do it. That you like it is only an anecdotal that has a value only for you and that’s the same for other owners. It’s a similar anecdotal issue as the Dava cartridge that shows around 5db FR deviations but some like it.
In the other side Baerwald that you named was not involved in the original tonearm alignment solutions:
Was Professor Erik Olof Löfgren of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. Löfgren’s paper is the earliest work which gives an analytical treatment of tracking distortion and develops a new optimum alignment method to minimise it. Löfgren applied mathematical rigor to the distortion model developed by Olney, and undertook a Fourier analysis on the model.
That was in 1938 and it’s a mistake to name Baerwald along Löfgren because the ONE down there is only LÖfgren, he was the " inventor/creator " only with no one else. Reviewers are wrong too when mention Baerwald instead Löfgren. You spend money as other owners in an audio item that by design is just wrong developing higher distortions, that that higher distortions like you do not say that the design is a top design . The VIV has other kind of not very good design issues that contributes to that " I like it ". When yo said that your other 3 cartridges sounds better in reality is not true BETTER but different because its stylus tip angle is running the grooves in way different angle and a " little " more away of what was recordd- Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
My first record player needed to be wound up and played only 78s and the only option was whether to use a steel needle or a hawthorn bush thorn, of which there was a supply in a small metal bowl in the top right corner. The 78s given to me with it included "Cherry Ripe" and "Come in to the Garden, Maud"! Maybe I’m looking for the "hawthorn sound" these days as I gravitate towards Benz Micro? |
What interests me is that the idea of an overhung pivoted tonearm seems to date back to about 1940, when Lofgren and Baerwald published their solutions to a question which seems to have been how to devise a pivoted tonearm that minimizes tracking angle error. Those gentlemen seem to have approached the problem as a mathematical or geometrical one, purely. And so their papers introduced the idea of having the cartridge overhang the spindle and then twisting the headshell with respect to a straight line emanating from the pivot. They did this work during what was still a very primitive era in home audio. Stereo did not exist, and most disc players were still of the wind-up variety. Many still used wholly mechanical Victrolas. How it came to be that their work, and also Stevenson’s, was universally adopted by tonearm manufacturers over time is something I would like to know more about. I suspect some major players adopted the idea and eventually everyone else followed suit without much further thought or debate. (I am certainly in no position to say, nor would I wish to claim, that the conventional design is all wrong or even that it is not optimal.) |
OK now I'm remembering you speculating above that what some might call the |
I suspect there are a few other things at play here beyond the TAE vs. skating force. From personal experience I can say that 3° TAE error on a conventional overhung setup is vastly different in sonic character than the same error on the 9" Schröder reference I set up as a 0 offset underhung arm. I purposely chose 3° TAE since it is beyond properly setup traditional tonearm error but guaranteed to occur on any underhung design.
dave |
Again, understood. I’m talking about the arm in general and remember, I’m one of the guys who isn’t questioning your assessment of this arm.
Nope. From what I’ve read about the Viv arm, it would be no problem putting it on my VPI TNT. I’m just talking about the arm generally.
Good grief. You obviously haven’t been reading the favorable comments I’ve been making about both this arm and the users such as you that refuse to allow specs and stereotypes to cloud their judgment. @lewm, I will leave the last word for you. I'm done with this thread, where even positive comments are subject to attack.
|
Red herring. I am not using a spring-suspended TT. In fact, the Lenco is mass loaded and then isolated from below by energy absorbing feet and shelf and stand sitting on a very inert floor. If you are saying that you use a SOTA or other spring-suspended TT, and if this issue is of vital importance to you, then perhaps you ought not to consider the Viv. Anyway, the tonearm mounting board on a SOTA moves in unison with the platter and bearing; you could mount a Viv on that arm board. However, I know you will say it’s not bolted down and therefore won’t make you happy, but actually how many tonearms are held in place with much more than 2 lbs of force? (I actually think there may be threaded inserts in the bottom of the base that do permit holding it down with machine screws; I will have to check.) |
They sit atop the plinth when the turntable is designed for that. For something such as the suspended subchassis Sota that I mentioned, they can be affixed to the subchassis. Not so the Viv. Again, the Viv apparently excels notwithstanding these apparent limitations. I'm not disputing that at all. |
But my original point was and is that the arm is heavily weighted, at least 2 lbs, so that when you sit it on a plinth surface that is in turn well coupled to the platter bearing, then there is a sort of coupling. This is not "like a pod" in that external forces can only disturb the Viv to the same extent that such forces might disturb the bearing; there is only one pathway (through the feet that support the slate plinth) from the shelf into both the Viv and the bearing assembly. Many other well regarded conventional pivoted tonearms are designed to sit on top of the plinth; these do not require a hole for a vertical shaft that supports the bearing and therefore you could argue they are not firmly coupled by imbedding into a formal tonearm mount. For examples, the Dynavector DV505, the Triplanar, and most of the Reed tonearms. I am sure there are others. There are some users of the DV505 who do not fix it with screws to the plinth; they just set it down on top. That would be "less coupled" than with the much heavier Viv. Also, there are many linear trackers that are only weakly coupled to the bearing by virtue of how they need to be mounted. Anyway, I can only report what I have done and the results as I hear them. I am certainly a believer in the need to couple the arm to the bearing, which is why I am happy my slate plinth I had made for the Lenco has room for the 9-inch Viv. The whole issue is a bit moot, since the Lenco sits on an energy absorbent shelf over a poured concrete floor 8 feet below ground level in my suburban bus-, truck-, and train-free home environment. |
| Post removed |
That's the designer's whole point, right? You have to wonder how many people here who are poo-poo'ing the Viv arm have permanent tracking error built right into their cartridges and don't even know it. They could be listening with the same amount or even more distortion than what the Viv arm produces depending on how their cartridges were assembled and how good of a job they did aligning it. |
