I am trying to do my due diligence about this arm. I am just having a hard time getting my head around this idea of zero overhang and no offset. Does this arm really work the way it is reported to do?
As any can see it needed only most inner/outer groove radius and nothing else.
This will give you the theoretical placement of the null points. Nobody is debating this. Again the topic at hand is actually placing those null points on a record surface and being able to trace through to them with a cartridge.
More specifically the only comment by me on this topic was simply to state that in order to get existence of two null points, both overhang and offset are required. In order to calculate those a third variable must be called out (EL, O or P2S). Using only part of a complete set of formulae "to prove one is right" is of no use in this case. This has truly become a classic example of what @clearthink outlined above and apologies to all for engaging in this fray of the thread.
Raul, I think you are talking about making a calculation and Dave is talking about geometry. The point is that in order for any pivoted tonearm to produce two null points on the playing surface of an LP, there MUST be overhang AND the headshell MUST be offset at an angle to the arm wand. You need both conditions. Simple and true.
It's great to see you doing your homework before making a decision. That's always a smart move! I can totally understand why you're struggling to wrap your head around this new arm concept. It can be tough to visualize how something will work until you see it in action. From what I've heard, though, this arm is the real deal. It seems to be performing as advertised, with zero overhang and no offset.
Yes, everyone knows what you think. Does your disdain apply to the very idea of an underhung tonearm or only to the Viv Float, which is a bit eccentric in other ways? I wish someone would market an underhung tonearm that is otherwise conventional. The only one I know of requires you to buy the Yamaha GT5000 turntable, complete with its underhung tonearm. If Yamaha were to market that arm as a separate entity, I would be interested. And I am also interested in the Viv.
I actually don’t think you could mount a cartridge on a paper straw, whether the straw was overhung or underhung.
@intactaudioI did try the Sperling underhung, but I could only get it underhung by around 8mm. That way it did distort on the last track of some records. I'll try it on another turntable where I can get it to 15-20mm.
The less the underhang the closer the single null point will be to the runout groove. It is also important to pay attention to the cartridge zenith since a slight offset of the Zenith from 0° will have the same net effect as a slight change in the underhang.
I’m always suspicious of absolutist commentary and expressed opinions about what is the “correct” approach to any audio related topic when after continuous inflexible opinions, the opinions are not accompanied by some reference (if only vague) to how the music sounds when reproduced by the piece in question. Something….anything that relates, not to a staunchly held view of what is technically “correct”, but to how the actual sound of the music is impacted. There’s a lot more to the sound besides obvious mistracking distortion.
Dear @intactaudio : Here are your main posts to me in even you talk about calculation where what I posted were all about LÖfgren A alignment calculations.
It’s really weird that in no other of your posts but only in the last one mentioned about " null points in LP surface existence ". Read carefully your first post to me with that Whaaa. From there came all other posts between you and me:
Null points calculation it not depends of any other parameter, not even tonearm EL.
Whaaaa???
you need to specify at least four parameters which typically are alignment type, inner groove diameter, outer groove And Pivot to spindle (P2S). The math then returns you two null points, effective length (EL) and offset angle. The overhang (OH) is then found by subtracting P2S from EL. The knowns and unknowns can be reworked based on the information available. Effective length can be substituted with a known overhang and the P2S returned.
dave "
""
Without overhang which requires an effective length to calculate the two null points cannot exist.
dave ""
""
I doubt Løfgren would suggest it possible to get two null points without the addition of overhang no matter how much you point him to his math.
dave """
What is all about?
Don’t you think that your last post should been the first one?:
"" those null points on a record surface and being able to trace through to them with a cartridge.....to get existence ""
Instead that you followed talking of calculations/math as me.
Dear @frogman : You are rigth but the owners of that tonearm just posted that they like it and in reality no one gone in deep detail in their tonearms comparisons with selected LP tracks.
I even posted to intactaudio if he could share the LPs tracks that was using in his tests and his answer was:"dead silence ".
I put my 9" HA arm up for sale a few easy-to-find places if anyone is interested. I’m still somewhat agnostic as to the discussion surrounding the fine details. Kind of tempting to try to put the arm to the test, but I’m mostly a 78 collector. Although I’m constantly exploring the frontiers of 78 sound engineering and restoration, I don’t have much interest in trying to break into the field of tonearm testing as a relative novice--I think I’ll stick with mysteries of the Soundsmith Strain Gauge for now along with the hot debate (in 78 circles anway) concerning digital IIR EQ curves and comparing them to their analog equivalents. That’s enough to keep me busy for months or years. For my second arm, I’m going to stick with something a bit more fixed--a few of the Viv’s adjustments were kind of troublesome with my particular plinth. I may regret selling it.
Earlier in this thread I mentioned setting the zero offset arm with 2 nulls.
What I really meant was as follows -
With a zero offset tonearm generally it is recommended to set a null point somewhere between the start and end of a typical LP.
You could set it halfway to minimise the maximum tracking angle distortion, or you could choose closer to the end of the playing area to minimise tracking angle distortion in the inner grooves for example.
What I surmise would be interesting to try would be to move the arm mounting point slightly forward so that the stylus is slightly forward of the single null point. You would then be able to reduce the maximum tracking angle distortion, the arm would be under and over hung, but you would still have the reduced skating force due to zero offset.
Dover, as you know, the single null point will lie on the radius of the LP and hopefully somewhere on the playing surface. I’ve been trying to visualize the setup you propose. Seems to me if you move the pivot forward of the null point but still short of the spindle ( pivot to spindle distance still greater than pivot to stylus) you just change the location of the single null. As soon as pivot to spindle = pivot to stylus, you’ll have no null point. And when pivot to stylus is greater than P2S, also no null point. I hope I’ve understood you correctly.
If you draw a line from the spindle to the edge of the record.( call it line A )
Then choose a null point on that line
Now draw a line ( call it line B ) at 90 degrees to line A intersecting the null to the armboard or mounting point - so you now have a T.
Normally I assume you would position the arm mounting along that 90 degree line such that the stylus swings an arc where it touches the null, but both sides of the null are underhung.
What I am suggesting is now move the mount forward so that when the stylus is forward of the null point.
Now when the stylus swings through the arc it should intersect line A twice.
So now the arm starts off underhung, then crosses line A and goes to overhung, then crosses line A again and goes to underhung.
In this set up the maximum tracking error is reduced, but you would still have the advantage of no skating forces due to offset.
Alternative Explanation 2
Alternately if you take your existing Rigid Float move the arm across the record.
The stylus draws an arc.
Draw a line through the spindle that crosses that arc at one point.
Now with the stylus positioned at that point, move the arm mount forward along a line 90 degrees to that point..
Instead of 100% underhung either side of the null you will now have both under and overhung. You should if I have my head right have reduced the maximum tracking error - potentially you could halve it - by having a mix of underhand overhung instead of 100% underhung.
Hopefully you can follow this.
By the way here’s another example of a 0 SideForce arm. Fidelix have been around forever.
With respect to the pivot and spindle, you can’t have both underhang and overhang at the same time.
I’m actually in Tokyo and contemplating the purchase of a Viv just to spite my dear friends Raul and Mijostyn. Their rigidity should not astonish me by now, but it does. In 1940 a couple of mainly German mathematicians published their solutions solely aimed at minimizing TAE at all costs and without any way of knowing what the negative consequences might be, insofar as all styli were literally “needles”, all recordings were mono, and the era of the Victrola for most listeners was still very much alive. For those gentlemen the achievement was solving a problem in geometry using math. Yet one version or another of their solutions was religiously adopted by companies that made tonearms from the end of WW2 to the present. I use the word “religiously “ on purpose. Is stylus overhang and headshell offset the audio equivalent of the 10 Commandments? I think that dogma is just as subject to question as is the idea of the underhung tonearm with zero headshell offset. What’s also puzzling is that no reviewer has a handle on the way in which the two approaches differ in their consequences. I too wish the Viv were more conventional in ways other than its geometry, and that’s the only reason I haven’t bought one, so far.
Dover, a light bulb went on in my head. I think I now understand what you mean, but it still seems to be the equivalent of shortening the distance from stylus to spindle, which only moves the single null point closer to the spindle. Still underhung.
With the arm in the middle position on the diagram, the stylus is at a null.
Now if you move the arm mount forward so the stylus is now forward of that null point, you can reduce the tracking error at the inside and outside of the record, increase the tracking error through the middle, but overall reduce the absolute maximum tracking error.
In May we visited our son in Tokyo for a few weeks, and I bought a Viv Float tonearm direct from the manufacturer, who is in a suburb of Tokyo near Yokohama. This was necessitated by the fact that all the Tokyo based dealers were out of stock. One of those dealers suggested I contact the Viv factory directly, and I finally did so thanks to my son acting as interpreter. Even Akimoto-san, the designer and owner of Viv, was out of stock, and I had to wait until July to receive my tonearm here in Bethesda, by post from Japan. Despite the language barrier, I perceive that Akimoto-san is a very nice guy and of course, honorable. I am using the Viv on my highly modified Lenco turntable where it can sit on the slate plinth adjacent to the platter. One issue with implementing this tonearm is that you need a minimum of 45mm clearance, which is to say that the base needs to sit 45mm below the surface of an LP, in order to achieve a level arm wand using any typical phono cartridge. (Obviously, this minimum mount distance from the platter could vary a bit if the cartridge body is unusually tall.) With the cartridges I have thus far auditioned, using a 5mm thick Boston Audio Mat2 on the Lenco platter and shimming the cartridge by 3mm together do the trick of achieving the desired VTA. The Viv arm base is very substantial, weighing at least 2 lbs, so sitting on the surface of the slate which is physically connected to the platter bearing by bolts and a clamp, I am not concerned about inadequate coupling of the tonearm to the platter bearing. So far, I have auditioned the following cartridges: Dynavector 17D3, Ortofon MC7500, and lately the ZYX Universe (the original version). The Viv provides female RCA jacks for output but the wiring permits a balanced connection if one wants that, because the outer barrel of the RCA jack is not connected to ground. There is a separate ground lug. The ensemble is running into my modified Manley Steelhead which drives the built in amplifiers of my Beveridge 2SW speakers for all frequencies above 80Hz. Below 80Hz, the signal goes via an external Dahlquist crossover to a Theshold Class A amplifier driving home built Transmission Line woofers. I bought the "9HA" version of the tonearm, 9 inches arm wand and made of aluminum. For a cost premium, there are CF versions of all the different lengths. I decided to go with aluminum, because in the event I found the arm to be too lively (i.e., too resonant as noted by some reviewers in describing the alu versions), I could temper the resonance by using a CF headshell, or by using CF shims, or by putting some heat shrink on the arm wand. In practice, I started out with CF headshells but right now I am using the Viv (aluminum) headshell with a 3mm CF shim that I bought on line.
Here is where I could wax poetic about the sound of the 3 cartridges in this tonearm. Suffice to say that each of the 3 cartridges sounds better in the Viv than it has in either of two other well regarded conventional overhung pivoted tonearms. The characteristic sound is "vivid", as the name suggests (dynamic contrasts are very well done, and I can hear why some thought that effect was partly due to resonance, tamed by a touch of CF), coherent (I detect absolutely no negative effect of the TAE at outer or inner grooves), and undistorted. I think that individual instruments in large orchestral pieces are more easily appreciated. Sound stage is open and spacious. Sense of depth is as good as I ever heard, if not better, and the Beveridge speakers are champions of depth. I'm really hear to say that one ought to open one's mind to the idea that it is possible that minimizing TAE (which is the reason we ended up with spindle overhang and headshell offset angle) at the cost of increasing the skating force might not be the best approach or the only valid approach to the design of a pivoted tonearm. Try it; you might like it.
Only 2lb? Acoustand tonearm pods are 5kg/11lb each. Even that isn't enough for some commenters! :)
Seriously though, you have put to the test what I mentioned a few pages back: the advantage of zero skating force might outweigh the tracking error. If it does, as you find, we are all wasting our time with conventional tonearms. Food for thought.
What weighs ~2 lbs is the base of the tonearm itself which houses the pivot and the magnetic oil bath. That sits directly on the surface of the slate plinth. To be clearer, I am not using any outboard pod at all.
Doggie, what this experience suggests to me, and I am far from drawing a definitive conclusion, is that the standard alignments yield a lot of skating force in order to minimize TAE, and such alignments then require the application of anti-skate as a cure for skating. Like you suggest, either skating force or anti-skate and the way in which it is applied may be more damaging to SQ than TAE. This is also consistent with the experience of some who say they now eschew the use of AS altogether, and prefer the result vs trying to cancel skating with AS.
@lewm I 'tip my hat to you' for being this adventurous.
The descriptions on offer from your early usage are quite interesting, they certainly suggest a perception is in place where the important instrumentation in a recording are now 'lesser constrained' in their presence, in freer space and possibly perceived as more honest/real? .
The idea that Three Models of Cart's have also not received any criticism, suggests the impression made can be ubiquitous and extend into further Cart's.
I also like the way the thoughts are already onboard about how to further eek the presentation to ones own unique preference by suggesting the combinations of materials that can be used for Wand and Headshell, as for the Headshell, I see these options extending beyond your own suggestions.
If 'lesser constrained' is the correct description for your musical encounters, it is this as a description that was the deciding factor for myself to remove from regular usage, Tonearms designed around copied Rega Design.
It is quite easy to understand why there will be variety to the methods adopted to be used with AS.
The use of AS is to set up a force to be applied to the modulation on the Grooves Side Wall.
At some point this force and the mechanical energies being produced as result of the set up, will be detected as having an audible effect.
The levels of recorded data within the modulation is to vary across different Vinyl LP's and in some cases different pressings of the same LP, will also be causing different impressions in relation to the chosen AS force.
If one were extremely anal or sensitive enough to the effect being detected, to the point they become biased. AS can easily become a setting that one feels will benefit the audible sonic if it undergoes constant alterations.
The other extreme, and one that might just prove the better of two evils, would be to remove the effects of AS to the point it is perceived as having almost zero influence on the audible sonic.
Is the tonearm base attached to the slate? Or does it rest upon it but not bolted down?
I'd call it a pod if it isn't bolted down, but I mean no disrespect by that term. I remain impressed by your commitment to testing rather than theorising.
Based on all other writings on the subject of “pod”, I define a pod as a separate base or stand or support structure used for the sole purpose of supporting a tonearm mounted outboard of the plinth, never on the plinth. The truncated conical structure seen in your photo IS an inseparable part of the tonearm housing the pivot, a well filled with magnetic oil, the cueing device, and the RCA jacks with ground lug. It is heavily weighted to the tune of ~2 lbs, probably by a lead slug incorporated into the base. It sits directly on top of the 65 lb slate plinth that houses the Lenco. You could sit the Viv on a true pod outboard of the TT, but I would not.
Incidentally, I don’t consider adopting the Viv to have been a courageous act, as it has already received many very favorable reviews with no exceptions that I have found on the internet. This is notwithstanding the negative comments by some who’ve posted on this thread without ever having seen much less heard this tonearm. If there had been a lot of negativity among actual reviewers, I probably wouldn’t have bothered.
Very cool. All the cartridges you have tried have "advanced" styli (I think) which may require more fastidious alignment to sound their best. At least in a traditional overhung tonearm. In this tonearm, you align the cartridge straight ahead and underhung? Is VTA or azimuth easy to adjust? Are the differences between cartridges the same as you remember from your previous uses or are the differences between them blunted in the Vivid?
Viv (not "vivid") supply a mounting template which is an L-shaped piece of plastic into which a hole is drilled for the spindle. You then place the template over the spindle and align the arm wand to be in line with the other leg of the "L", and set it up so the stylus falls into a tiny hole at the junction between the two legs of the L. Very, very simple in practice if not in my description. This sets the tonearm so that the single null point is about at the middle of the playing surface of a typical LP. Thus the stylus tip will underhang the spindle by the distance from the center of the spindle to the middle of the playing surface. I gather that some do use an outboard pod in order to achieve the proper VTA, because the pod can be set up to be as short as you want so as to permit the needed min 45mm clearance.
Azimuth is fully adjustable by loosening a screw near the pivot end of the arm wand and then rotating the arm wand with respect to the pivot. I described my one issue with VTA. In order to achieve a level parallel to the LP surface, the distance from the arm wand to the bottom of the base of the tonearm has to be at least 45mm. (More distance is no problem, as you can raise the pivot off its base and then use a set screw to keep it in place.) On my Lenco, in order to achieve the minimum 45mm, I have to use my Boston Audio Mat2, which is 5mm thick, on the Lenco platter and then also shim the cartridge in the headshell, using a 3mm shim.
Correction: the stylus underhangs the spindle by the distance of the spindle from the arc described by the stylus once it is set to produce a single null point at the center of the playing surface. Not quite what I wrote above.
Have you seen any mention in the documentation on where they want the null point to be placed? My guess is 2/3 to 3/4 the way to the leadout is a good start.
if you can trust the math it seems that putting the null at around 72-75mm will net the best overall compromise. Below is what 72mm looks like compared ot 99mm and a typical Lofgren A.
I think the whole point is that minimizing TAE is not so critical or rather that minimizing skating force is more important. But I will measure the template and see exactly where the null is in mm from spindle.
OK. I just measured from the center of the hole in the template for the spindle to the center of the much smaller hole in the template for the stylus tip, using a Matatuyo caliper, 89.7mm
Straight underhung arms still skate, one way or the other depending on where they are on the record. The only arms that do not skate are straight tangential trackers. The problem is there are currently no straight line trackers that do not have substantial issues.
The fact that the Viv are sounds satisfactory to many people is an enigma as the distortion is substantial. Maybe we are not sensitive to that type of distortion. I applaud you for your curiosity and willingness to spend money on a device that might not work out. It is how you learn.
It's good to know you've read all my many posts in which I mentioned that underhung tonearms generate a skating force, except at the null point where.... there is zero skating force, in contradistinction to conventional overhung tonearms which generate a skating force even at their two null points, owing to the headshell offset angle.
As for the rest of your post, what I find so far with each of 3 cartridges that I have extensively audition on conventional tonearms, is that the Viv sounds excellent in every respect and even has some uniquely appealing qualities that I would say add to the sense of verisimilitude with recorded music on LPs. And that's what we are after, TAE notwithstanding.
Bravo to Lewm for actually buying the Viv Lab arm and then trying it out with 3 carts…and then explaining what he did and what he heard.
I have had the Viv Labs arm for a few years now (HA9 as well) and have followed this thread with the chagrin and shaking of the head reserved for all too many Audiogon threads….So I am glad to see these posts reporting direct experience (for the nth time) of this arm that has been, mocked, ridiculed and rejected—by those who have never used or heard it because they “know” better.
In order for the arm to work with the GP Monaco, my Viv Lab arm sits on a Sierra Sound arm pod (NAB-1 Tonearm Platform). Both the tt and the Viv Lab/pod are on a Stacore platform.
The NAB-1 provides the necessary height for the arm, but also and crucially, the NAB-1 is raised and lowered via threaded spikes, using a 3mm hex wrench to make tiny adjustments in overall arm height and to exactly level the arm.
Without this pod, moving the arm up or down requires loosening a set screw to raise and lower the entire upper half of the arm, which often results in gross movement rather than precision.
Leveling the arm is also crucial to its performance, which the SS pod also makes a snap.
Of course, if you don't need the additional height or pod, you will have to find another way of precisely raising and lowering the arm. The deck of cards method recommended in the Audio Beatnik review works, but rather clumsily.
NB: Mike at Sierra Sounds assures me that a new batch of NAB-1 pods will be available later this year.
What I was commenting on is the lower limit of the necessary distance between the base of the Viv and the stylus tip, if one wants to level the arm wand, which is 45mm. I neglected to mention that if the base of the arm is situated so that the distance needs to be greater than 45mm, then the upper part of the arm which carries the pivot and etc, can be raised an additional 10-20mm and fixed in place with a set screw. Thanks for pointing that out.
The point I most wanted to get across is that, if you take as gospel the emphatic declarations that this tonearm and others like it cannot possibly work because of excessive TAE or whatever else, then the result of my listening tests should have been disastrous, on the negative side. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, I find myself listening to the Viv/ZYX most of the time, even though I have five other tonearm/cartridge combinations at my disposal at any time.
Dave, on the one particular LP I sampled, 72mm from the spindle is nearly the innermost playable groove. The actual recommended distance of ~90mm from the spindle is at least two-thirds of the way from outermost to innermost on that particular LP. Of course, one is free to ignore the template.
This arm is a paradox. It clearly does not appear to have the same 'weighting' for TAE as a conventional pivoted tonearm. Mijo mentions above that there is skating in all non-linear trackers but I think it needs to be clear that the nature and magnitude of the skating on a traditional arm is much greater than that of its underhung brethren. I mentioned earlier in the thread that when I placed an underhung arm on a blank record surface it pretty much stayed where I put it with no anti-skate dialed in.
When we get to a situation like this where experience conflicts with traditional beliefs I always tend to side with the experience and then look for the unique details of the specific situation to try to better hone my views on the traditional. In an underhung arm the single null point can be manipulated by either changing the amount of the underhang OR changing the zenith. My gut feel is to set the zenith to keep any skating to a minimum then adjust the underhang to set the null.
... if you take as gospel the emphatic declarations that this tonearm and others like it cannot possibly work because of excessive TAE or whatever else, then the result of my listening tests should have been disastrous, on the negative side. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, I find myself listening to the Viv/ZYX most of the time ...
This is exactly why I've been following this thread so closely. Other listeners have shared similar results, and of course it's all confounding if all we do is look at the "negatives" of this arm: high tracking angle error and a separate pod mount that would seem to allow more error still. That suggests that when it comes to LP playback, we don't know everything about correlating pickup arm geometry with sonic results. And if that's true, where else in audio might we be making decisions based on flawed or incomplete assumptions?
I still hope to hear a Viv arm someday. Until then, I'll rely on others to tell me how it sounds.
Maybe this indicates that zero tracking angle error is not the Holy Grail some claim it to be.
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.
No pod! Pod is an option if you can’t fit it on the plinth surface ...
Understood. But if the arm isn't rigidly attached to the chassis - which, depending on the turntable, isn't necessarily the plinth - it is essentially affixed like a pod.
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.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
