Dear @lewm : Any one can argue about because it's a way incomplete ideal tonearm description that I'm not willing to " take " this time.
In the other side what you posted:
" the stylus should always ride right down the middle of the groove. "
that could not happens not only in LT but pivot LT tonearms due that the tremendous forces generated during stylus tip ridding modulations impedes that groove after groove the tip stays just centered. As a fact the stylus tip is not always in touch with the LP grooved surface.
Anyway, I assume that you are not still ready to share your final veredict of what you are experienced. Yes, listening time is important in that issue.
R.
|
Dear friends: Even that lewm posted that it's not the main subject in the thread and yes it's not however I consider that's important for each one audiophile knowledge levels and especially because in this thread we are talking of tonearm/cartridge alignment, what this means and differences against ( mainly ) Löfgren A or B alignments.
Several times I posted about " corrupted " AHEE and here in the kind of alignments the " corrupted " word is the precise one because " invent " alignment or false alignment information is a kind of corruption. Examples of professional tonearm/cartridge protractor manufacturers:
Dr. Feickert site speaks of Löfgren, Baerwald and Stevenson alignments
Wally: speaks of Löfgren and Baerwald.
J.Ellison calculator speaks the same.
In both cases they " invented " a new alignment because Löfgren alignment just does not exist. What exist is Löfgren A and Löfgren B Additional they give an " honor " to Baerwald when he was not involved side by side with Löfgren in 1938 developed alignments equations.
I know not no body cares about but I do because in " theory " those " professional " manufacturers at least should have the responsability to share the rigth information to his customers that are all of us However what they are showing or trying we learn is corrupted information even if they do not did it on purpose.
For me both sites need some kind of explanatio for audiophiles can have first hand professional and true information.
Well, that's my take.
R.
Btw, only VE calculator named Löfgren A instead that Baerwald and obviously speaks of Löfgren B.
|
Raul, When I wrote that the stylus should always ride down the middle of the groove, it was perhaps a poor choice of words for what I wanted to convey, which I then tried to capture better in my follow on statement. Of course, in reality the groove itself, because of its tortuosity, friction, and Newtonian mechanics, will toss the stylus tip around quite a bit, and this is sometimes an audible cause of mistracking. But Mijostyn was laying down ideal parameters that cannot be perfectly adhered to, so I added to his list of idealistic goals. In an ideal world, the tonearm and cartridge would be massless and therefore not affected at all by groove tortuosity.
|
Dear friends: I forgot to post on the protractor manufacturers that speak of Stevenson alignment that ( as with Lögren ) Stevenson alignment does not exist but Stevenson A and Stevenson B and no one of those manufacturers an even tonearm manufactursrs made any explanation about..
@lewm , agree with you but unfortunatelly there no exist that " ideal ".
Next information on alignment is important due that came from Löfgren him self:
" “From the shape and location of the curves, it results that the largest distortion risk occurs when the overhang is not correctly set for the linear offset. On the other hand, the angular offset itself is not so critical”
R.
|
" “From the shape and location of the curves, it results that the largest distortion risk occurs when the overhang is not correctly set for the linear offset. On the other hand, the angular offset itself is not so critical”
I don't think when Löfgren had the above idea that he considered the concept of an advanced profile and the possibility of dissimilar info on opposing groove walls. I think those two additions make the correct angular offset (Zenith) as or more important than overhang.
dave
|
Or that music information would eventually be encoded in vertical as well as purely horizontal motion of the stylus, as was the case in the 30s and 40s.
|
One other desirable attribute for a Cartridge Function is for continuous Signal Path from Coil to Phonostage. Fragility of the assembly and the inconvenience, are just two factors that are going to make this a very bespoke choice for an individual. For myself I have had thoughts on this methodology for quite a period of time, and am willing to bear with the obstacles foreseen and unforeseen.
I have a design for a Cart' and to get this in place, due to ongoing conflict within a Country, there is a period of waiting to be endured. The end product is where a Cart' will have been rebuilt using a few options not commonly seen in use, especially by the Brand that produced the Cart'.
One area of the design change will be to use a PC Triple C/EX Wire, that will be directly attached to the Coils, bypassing the Cart Lead Out Pins. This is a very fragile assembly and is yet to decided if the C/EX will be a Tag Wire or a Continuous Wire.
If it does become a Continuous Wire, the idea of Hard Wiring the Termination into the SUT will certainly be presented as an idea to be tried out, it is a experience I would very much like to have been able to have.
My experiences to date has shown that certain wire and connectors in the Signal Path, depending on Type, can present a SQ, that in my assessment is a detriment. At the same time when a certain type of Wire and a certain type of connector has been selected, there is little that can be detected to create the suggestion, that the SQ is being effected in a detrimental way.
With the latter in mind, I am keen to hear the Signal Path without connectors in use for transferring signal produced be the Cart'. There does seem to be the possibility something further in betterment of the SQ can be achieved.
Once the Cart' Rebuild Service is no longer being cut off through sanctions on the Country, and the design for the Cart' is finally agreed and achieved. The agreement will include, that any works caried out on the Signal Path, if causing difficulties with the user interface, the Cart' can be returned to a almost original signal Path at a very fair cost within a short timescale.
Nothing Ventured - Nothing Gained
|
I had wanted to circumvent the need for anti-skating in a tonearm, but the approach of a Viv, which promises this, makes the "cure" only worse. Thank you for the history of the research on this.
|
Barney, are you saying that the contents of this thread bear evidence that convinces you the Viv tonearm and other underhung tonearms are “worse than the disease” of antiskate? Or what?
FYI, underhung tonearms do generate a skating force except at their single null point. However, (1) that force is lower in magnitude than the skating force generated by overhung tonearms, and (2) the vector direction of the skating force changes from pointing inward to pointing outward, as the stylus passes through the null point. This latter would make it tricky to design an AS device for an underhung tonearm. even if one were wanted.
Have you ever auditioned any underhung tonearm?
|
Dear @intactaudio : Why the stylus shape can affect the alignment?
Linear offset is the same always in both Löfgren A and B alignments if we don’t change the must inner groove and must outer grove distances.
If you have a cartridge /tonearm set up for Löfgren A alignment and by a mistake ( as happened to me twice times. ) you are 2mm-3mm forward against the correct overhang sooner or latter and through listening you will " catch " that something is not running well with that overall cartridge set up and it is because you are out of the original calculated linear offset.
I had at least twice times first hand experiences with and at least coincide with the Löfgren statement.
What have you on hand and from where say that zenith is more important than overhang: how much more important? could you share your specific first hand experiences on the whole issue? and remember that the VIV way high angular offset has no " audible distortions ". It's what their owners shared everywhere.
Well, something to share with you is that I just finished my listening tests making on purpose a 2mm overhang error and other test changing only ( what more or less permits the headshell ) the angular offset. I think you need to do it.
Still the question about the stylus tip shape stays to you.
R.
|
@rauliruegas
Well, something to share with you is that I just finished my listening tests making on purpose a 2mm overhang error and other test changing only ( what more or less permits the headshell ) the angular offset. I think you need to do it.
If you only change overhang without a corresponding change in Zenith you will not be in a good place. Here is a standard Lofgren A compared to a Lofgren A with a 2mm increase of overhang.
here is the same +2mm with a complimentary 1.4° change in zenith.
and to complete things here is back to the standard Lof A overhang with a 1.4° Zenith error.
dave
|
Dear @drbarney1 : You are totally rigth: " makes the " cure " only worse ".
But even that huge VIV offset angle the issue is that has no " detectable " listen distortions but the other way around:
" 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........., 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..."
I already posted that the election of this VIV tonearm is a Personal Choice.
I already posted several times through several years: no one can questioning ( negative ) any other gentleman for what he or I like, because that's what I like no matters what.
The pity issue in the overall VIV subject is that ours ears/brain is truly poor to detect the " nice " VIV developed distortions.
R.
|
Raul, You and others have successfully equated TAE with "distortion" in the minds of most, without ever having defined what sort of distortion might result from TAE and its audibility, apart from phase distortion, which I think is trivial compared to all the other sources of phase distortion that are inherent to home audio systems, let alone to vinyl. What is needed is a serious study of this phenomenon where measurements are made. While we are at it, in the same study, skating force distortion ought also to be measured. Until then, your complete conviction that you alone are possessed of the "truth" rings hollow to me. Is your close-minded attitude any better than the behavior of the AHEE that you so revile? And by the way, worship of minimizing TAE at all costs is a basic tenet of the AHEE. That’s why we have 12-inch tonearms and several linear trackers where the cure is certainly worse than the disease, referring to LTs that use a noisy motor or gravity derived by dishing the platter, or a poorly designed air bearing, to drive the pivot across the LP, and LTs with stubby arm wands that maximize the deleterious effects of even small warps.
By the way, Dave was in my house and demonstrated the negative effects of zenith error, using one of my conventional overhung pivoted tonearms and a cartridge that was correctly aligned to begin with. (This was months before I purchased the Viv.) The improvement in SQ associated with correcting for the zenith error of the stylus mount was immediately apparent.
|
Frankly, this is all about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, unless, or until, we listen to the underhung arm in question. I have not, but I can encompass how and why it might sound better in my dreadfully simplistic way. I'd buy one myself if I had any cash to spare.
|
@drbarney1
Hi Sir. Have you looked at the Schroder LT. Brilliant design! Then there is the Reed 5A and 5T. The only other solution would be a tangential straight line tracker, but that one is difficult to pull off. There is not a satisfactory one on the market yet. Both the Schroder LT and the Reed arms require more real estate than a 9 or 10" arm. You have to have a turntable that will accept a 12" arm.
The fact that the Viv arm sounds good to some people speaks to the lack of sensitivity our ears have to the distortion created by zenith error. It is well made and trick which helps.
|
The fact that the Viv arm sounds good to some people speaks to the lack of sensitivity our ears have to the distortion created by zenith error. It is well made and trick which helps.
@mijostyn While your supposition above seems plausible, I would not consider it a valid statement of fact. I'll agree that a no offset underhung arm has much larger TAE than a traditional offset arm. I'll also agree that many find this type of arm to sound good. To attach these two facts together to make conclusions about the relative audibility of Zenith error is counterproductive and a much deeper dive into what is going on is needed. I know I have done similar in stating that a 3° zenith error in an underhung arm (the one case i tried) did not seem to equate sonically to the same error in in an conventional arm. It has also been posed that the UH arm users simply like distortion, that TAE is a pleasing distortion, and that if you like the sound of this arm your system is not capable of the required resolution for high end audio. It can also be pointed out that if our ears are not sensitive to TAE then any discussion of different alignment types becomes a fools errand.
I find all of this to be the exact opposite of the proper scientific method where one observes a pattern of behavior (good sound from the UH arm in this case) and then goes in search of an explanation. Many here seem to be looking at the 'standard' procedure of judging setups by some theoretical Y-axis value on a graph and cannot deal with the concept that there may be much more to this than looking at an excel spreadsheet. The differences in anti-skate between the two methods as well as other tonearm build factors have also come into the discussion. I expect it is some complex relationship of all of the factors mentioned in this thread that explains the seeming disconnect between TAE and the sonic perception of a 'traditional' vs. Viv arm.
I have been joking lately that crosstalk and channel separation have become the most important parameters in cartridge setup simply because they are the easiest for anyone to measure and brag about. I am adding the whole discussion of alignment types and TAE to this category since they are really easy to calculate and very difficult to implement to the accuracy required.
dave
|
Mijostyn, please do a little more thinking before erupting. Zenith error has an equally destructive effect on alignments whether you’re using a UH tonearm or a conventional one. In both cases you lose null points and TAE is exacerbated. But, come to think of it now, with a UH situation, there might be a point on the arc of stylus travel where zenith error by chance corrects for TAE, and you’d actually have less TAE (maybe even a null) at that moment. I wonder whether Dave has looked at that.
On the day Dave "twisted" my cartridge (Audio Technica ART7) to correct for its zenith error, using an electronic method, not guesswork, my ears immediately picked up to the effect of the proper correction. And Dave’s did too. It was quite obvious that the SQ had ticked up a notch or two. So, with an overhung tonearm (in this case, Kenwood L07J tonearm on my L07D turntable) I certainly can hear TAE errors. Currently in the Viv I am listening to my ZYX Universe. That cartridge has never been re-tipped. By visual inspection using my Olympus microscope, it has considerable zenith error in the mounting of its stylus, in that you can easily see it by microscopy. Whereas the two other cartridges that have been in the Viv (Dynavector 17D3 and Ortofon MC7500) may also have zenith error, but I cannot see it by visual inspection.
|
@intactaudio
I have a hard time believing that the distortion created by the underhung arm is euphonic. But, whatever. My approach is always to setup my system with a scientific approach. In order to determine what is going on with the Viv arm I would have to buy one and a second cartridge. It is far enough afield that I am not interested in doing that, the deeper dive. Knowing what phase errors do at high frequencies my supposition while not proven is as likely as any other. The distortion caused by zenith error is easily measured. As for cartridge set up. I prefer Lofgren B because it has the lowest TAE across the entire record accept at the last 2 cm which are usually not used in modern records and most older ones. Setting a cartridge up is a very fastidious process that requires the right tools and a sharp eye. If you have not used a SmarTractor I highly suggest you try one. It looks intimidating at first. After a few installs you'll never understand how you managed without it. The WallySkator is also very useful as is a proper USB microscope and computer program. The WallyScope uses a great head unit from Amscope and a great program, but the stage is a work in progress. I know of no horizontal stage that is appropriate for a high powered microscope. I my case I made my own cannibalizing an old medical microscope.
@lewm
Zenith error and TAE are almost identical. The stylus is presented to the groove at the wrong horizontal angle. In the case of TAE the entire cartridge is at the wrong angle. One can safely assume that the distortion would be very similar between the two, perhaps a bit worse with TAE.
You like the sound of the Viv arm and there is no way I can argue with that.
|
@mijostyn
How do you know you actually have the alignment you say you do? Here is a test report of three random samples of stylus assemblies from an order I placed. This is representative of the best numbers I have seen thus far and are kind of terrifying.
I don't care how great of a protractor you have if you are aligning to a cantilever without consideration of possible diamond set error then I see the baby going out with the bathwater. JR addresses this by optically placing a number on the Zenith error and then providing a protractor with the ability to correct for this error. Next we can open the can of static vs. dynamic worms and observe how much skating forces and groove modulation come into play here as well. In many setups, when you adjust azimuth to better crosstalk numbers you also change your alignment. Add or remove a gram of anti-skate correction and you have just changed your alignment. Its really easy to brag about a preferred alignment and the precision of your setup and quite humbling to realize you are actually nowhere near where you thought you were.
dave
|
Mijostyn, It does not behoove you to use the term "scientific" in this context to justify any of your thinking on the subject. Your approach fails the scientific method on first principles. You are operating within a belief system that starts out with TAE = bad. But I concede that neither of us has the actual data, apart from Intact Audio’s data, to justify any claims at all. I can say that when Dave "fixed" the zenith error on my ART7, it suddenly sounded better. He also measured the resulting TAE which reverted to the textbook look for a well aligned cartridge in an overhung tonearm. This certainly is consistent with the notion that TAE matters when zenith and the alignment according to accepted algorithms are both correct, for an overhung tonearm (with AS applied and azimuth set to 90 degrees, as well). Can you find a paper in the audio literature where the effects of TAE on the audio signal were looked at with a ’scope or some other valid method, that quantifies distortion of one kind or another? I cannot so far. This subject is only interesting if you approach it with an open mind. And I certainly don’t blame you if you don’t want to buy an underhung tonearm, but it does hamper your capacity to make a judgement on them as a class. Like I said, I took a flyer because the Viv has received near uniform positive reviews, because I could buy at a considerable discount in Japan, because I have also had good results with the weird RS Labs RS-A1, and because a major company (Yamaha) has seen fit to produce an expensive turntable with a built-in underhung tonearm. (I don’t use the RS-A1, because it is very finicky and most of all because it dangles the counterweight from the rear of the arm in order to place its center of gravity at the surface of the LP. This leaves the CW to sway like a pendulum, literally on off-center LPs, which cannot be good for the cartridge suspension. But the RS-A1 displays many of the positive good qualities of the Viv.)
|
I did find some papers on this subject. Here is a long post from Vinyl Asylum. The author makes the good point that TAE affects only frequencies encoded in the horizontal plane (low frequencies), and he states that the distortion due to TAE is Harmonic in type. That may explain why if there is distortion due to TAE with the Viv and similar underhung tonearms, I (at least) do not find it objectionable. Also, the level of distortion is inversely proportional to velocity, meaning HD will be higher near to the inner grooves. The math is complex and will take some time for me to digest:
https://www.audioasylum.com/messages/vinyl/43557/tone-arm-geometry-and-tracking-distortion-longish
Finally, the post opens the door to think maybe the skating force is more obnoxious than TAE.
|
Dear @intactaudio : You don’t get it my point or I can’t explain it in the rigth wat but your charts goes exactly on what I listening during those yesterday tests: the overhang change/error produce a kind of distortion that’s detected when the alone " error " in the offset angle not only is lower but just can’t detect it in easy way. This is my issue.
In the other side, in this thread I posted that the angular error is only a part of the whole subject because a tonearm is a lot more than tha and I posted about that well damped VIV pivot bearing and its arm wand O rings and the like.
Change in overhang alone is truly sensible and audible, we can see that a tiny difference around only 0.4mm between Löfgren A and Löfgren B alignments that tracking distortion goes lower in the B alignment and both A and B alignments have the same offset angle.
Yes, even if we have the best tools to make the cartridge/tonearm set up the perfect set updoes not exist because LP groove after groove surface is not totally flat but full of waves and micro-waves where the stylus tip it’s looking different VTA almost at each groove. I posted several times about as I posted that changes in VTF/VTA/AZ and the like change the original set up, it’s the reality of the imperfection of analog as is the fact that even top cartridges comes with no perfectly centered stylus tip at the cantilever even sometimes comes with not centered cantilever.
Btw, here I don’t mentioned that lewm does not listen the high distortions developed by the VIV ( because " not golden ears " ) or that his system has not the resolution to do it but I posted the other way around and don’t diminish him or his system in anyway. I have respect for lewm, I know who he is.
Every one of us know about those " nice distortions " but no one but the VIV owners experienced a totally NEW kind of " nice distortions " ( lewm I posted that it’s need it to look at what sort of distortion as you said but with my words ) and almost all know that our ears are not the best " tool " to detect not only that kind of distortion but several others because during LP playback what we are listening and that we like it’s totally full of distortions.
No one here is discovering the " black thread ".
Still my question abou the stylus shape is On and with out answer from you .
R.
@lewm : " Until then, your complete conviction that you alone are possessed of the "truth" rings hollow to me. Is your close-minded attitude any better than the behavior of the AHEE that you so revile? "
You are who think that because here for what I posted tells you that I’m not a close-mind but the other way around. What you could think is only that what you think but not what is my attitude on the whole subject .
I don’t remember that in this thread you mentioned or accepted that are listening added unique kind of distortions by that high tonearm offset angle and : Are you saying I’m close-mind? .
Btw, I was writing my post when you already posted that link that I don't read yet.
|
@intactaudio
Simple, I have a very powerful USB microscope and a computer program that allows me to snap lines and it automatically determines angles. I detail each and every cartridge I buy. If there is an error I correct for it, but frankly all my cartridges are in the 9 to 13 thousand dollar range and are beautifully made. If I ever got a cartridge that was that bad I would send it right back.
|
@intactaudio
By the way JR and I are pen pals. He modified the WallyScope due to a recommendation of mine. The head unit of my scope started out life as a WallyScope.
@lewm
TAE is bad, so isn't skating. The approach taken by the majority of pivoted tonearm designers is the right one. Regardless of how you think the Viv arm sounds it is the wrong approach. The ultimate tonearm would be a tangential straight line tracker but nobody has managed to do one correctly yet. The technology to do it correctly has just been developed.
Also, the author of that vinyl asylum paper is FOS. TAE affects all frequencies but primarily high frequencies the distortion is not harmonically related at all as the distortion varies continuously as does TAE. All frequencies have a horizontal component except those in perfect mono dead center.
|
@intactaudio
If you go to my system page. There is a picture of the front end with a bunch of records. To the left is my desk. On it you can see the microscope and the special light I use with it. Further over out of the picture is my workstation.
|
"TAE affects all frequencies but primarily high frequencies the distortion is not harmonically related at all as the distortion varies continuously as does TAE. All frequencies have a horizontal component except those in perfect mono dead center."
I can agree that most frequencies have both a horizontal and vertical component in the movement of the stylus. It is simple-minded perhaps to suggest that "low frequencies" are produced by horizontal motion, but beyond that, can you further explain the rest of your statement that I quote here? Thanks.
Pursuant to your use of a USB microscope, do you correct for zenith error using it? Or do you find that all your cartridges are perfect corrected for zenith? I don't trust myself to see a one or two degree error in zenith using my analog microscope, and indeed in most cases I don't see error, but the ZYX Universe I own has a very obvious error by the same method. Therefore I assume it's at least 3 degrees or more. I have not inspected the ART7 that Dave twisted to correct for zenith, because I don't want to mess up his adjustment; the cartridge now sounds so good.
|
@lewm
With the program I use, you snap a line exactly parallel to the cantilever then another through the long axis of the stylus. It should read 90 degrees. All my current cartridges are 90 degrees within the error of the process. I just started doing this recently. But I have seen cartridges that were obviously off by eye.
As for TAE as the stylus rotates off tangency it reads the groove at a slightly different time in one channel than the other, phase shifts. The higher frequencies have much shorter wavelengths and consequently shorter groove modulations. Thus with TAE you are going to shift phase much more dramatically for high frequencies. At 180 degrees the channels cancel eachother. This will happen a lot sooner for 20 kHz than it will for 20 Hz. You actually cannot shift phase enough at 20Hz to make any significant distortion because the wavelength is so large in comparison to the size of the stylus. You can't even shift phase much more than a few degrees at 20 kHz as the wavelength is still significantly larger than the stylus.
|
The phase argument was originally yours. I don’t buy its importance either. We agree.
|
Hey all,
Another problem I am having with this discussion is the term 'distrotion' is being used way too generically. I believe that the original use of the term by Löfgren etal was referring to THD caused by having a HMA (horizontal modulating angle) different than the HTA (horizontal tracing angle). In his AES convention paper, Richard Tollerton digitally simulates errors of VTA and HTA in reproduced music and concludes large errors (beyond what an underhung arm provides) are required to enter the realm of audibility. This is in direct contrast to my experiences and as far as I can tell Tollerton only considers the effect of the relation of the cantilever in the horizontal and vertical planes and like the pioneering work does not include the effects of incorrect SRA or Zenith.
I find vinyl playback to be an inherently high measured distortion medium and any numbers predicted by the various alignment types tend to be of such a small comparative magnitude that much of this discussion is about the mouse and not the elephant it has trapped in the corner.
dave
|
@intactaudio
If the mouse is distortions fromTAE, what's the elephant?
|
the elephant is every other thing about vinyl playback that obscures the ability to measure minor changes in THD as a result of TAE. Attempting to assign an accurate and consistent FOM to TAE from THD has thus far proven to be an effort in futility. An interesting addendum to this is how many people take the theoretical numbers rooted in the conceptual world and argue about the superiority of one alignment vs. another without a clue as to how their cartridge is actually aligned in the real world. I think it can be summed up with my belief that if you have two null points on the record face then you have won and bet far greater than half of the folks out there do not have any null points. For reference, based on the goal of an ideal Löfgren A a TAE of ±0.8° will push the null points off the playable area of a record.
dave
|
Dear @intactaudio and friends: The link you posted shows only that it’s the first time that that distortion was measured.
Rigth from the begin of the digital medium/CD almost all started to talk about the CD jitter and almost at the same time some of us started too to speak of anlog tracking jitter and not only that but between other audiophiles I started too to post several times through the years that trtuose cartridge ridding road named " Hymalaya Mountains " where the jitter and the Himalaya we just can’t avoid in any way: it’s main part of the LP/cartridge imperfections. Never was measured but it’s almost useless when not only each LP but each LP track measures different.
Well, those truly high distortions that are part of the " game " never were detected by us are just added colorations that we all like and that we can’t avoid.
The cartridge/tonearm alignments is something different that obviously does not measures those, the alignment only measures the additional tracking distortions as an effect in pivoted non LT tonearms and that’s why exist that overhag and offset angle. NO the alignments were not calculated to help with other issues as the off-centered cartridge stylus/cantilever because that responsability is of the cartridge manufacturers that need to way improve its QC.
Around 20 years ago I started to develop a " trusty " comparison whole proccess tests that through those years was up-graded/up-dated several times where I always use the same LP tracks that I know better than the fingers of my hands and I don’t use all the track because depending of what I’m testing msometimes I listen 20 seconds on one track and the like.
That proccess permits me to know what to look for and that’s why I can detect that overhang or offset-angle at some pointand some SPL. With out know what to look for detectionof those kind of distortions is to difficult to do it.
Btw, sometimes the alignment tracking distortions are developed at lower SPL that the one need it to detect it.
So all the satisfied VIV owners are " deaft " , ceratinly not and it’s not that their room/system has a poor level resolution. No, my take is that each one of them comparison proccess is not good enough to detect those alignment developed distortions. That’s all.
Btw, @lewm , the gentleman that did the analysis in your link posted there:
" Any arm not being designed according to one of these two approaches, produces higher tracking distortion than necessary and should be disregarded. ""
Overall is an extreme complex issue.
R.
|
Raul, I saw his comment, too. Let the author defend it.
|
|
@lewm : He has or posted nothing that needs " defend " it. He, as some of us, is spot on the whole issue.
Your latest posts seems to me that posted to justify in some way that you are satisfied with the wrong VIV tonearm but due that you like it you don't need to justify nothing to others but only maybe to you.
Again, the issue to have a self developed test/comparison " bullet proof " whole proccess is critical to detect any errors elsewhere and your proccess showed is not good enough to detect what is obvious and same for the other owners.
I know that almost no one cares about that test proccess but it's critical for any gentleman that think is a MUSIC lover an audiophile.
With out that test proved proccess you don't know what to look for, so you can't detect even what's obvious and is not your culprit but that proccess you have.
R.
|
Dear Raul, I often have a problem to figure out in what way you are questioning my opinions or abilities, because of the language barrier. In this case, it seems you are saying that I am incapable of discerning what are to you and some others obvious issues with the Viv Float tonearm, because I don't have a "test proved process" to use as a basis for comparison. Based on your past statements, going all the way back to the MM thread, I gather that you worked very hard to develop ways to test new equipment or program material by training yourself as a listener. To my knowledge, you don't actually use test instruments to collect data, and you don't do a formal analysis of yours or anyone else's data to draw conclusions. In the end, you rely upon your trained ears. Perhaps you are exposed to quantitative analysis in some cases through your association with Jose'. If so, I don't recall your ever bringing such information to Audiogon Forums. All that said, and even assuming you are a better "listener" than I am, you have no experience with any underhung tonearm, so far as I know. I have made the empirical observation that the Viv Float tonearm (and the RS-A1) sounds "good", better than one might ever expect based on theory as we have come to know modern tonearm theory. And in some respects, the Viv is revealing in ways that other tonearms do not often achieve. I have made no claim that the Viv is "the best" tonearm or that it is even "better" than good pivoted tonearms with overhang. My 45 years of experience as a bench scientist tell me that when one gets a surprising result in an experiment, it is time to pay attention to those surprising data, because understanding what happened can sometimes lead to important alteration of one's belief system. Here I am merely trying to understand why the Viv sounds so good with a variety of cartridges. Since you have never heard it, you have no status in this discussion. We all know in what ways it defies convention. That does not explain its goodness. Meantime, you are welcome to read the discussion here, such as it is, but your criticism of my qualifications adds nothing. At least I own and listen to the tonearm you so dislike, probably without ever having seen one in the flesh.
As to your inference that I cannot be a MUSIC lover, that's insulting. So I see that you took your usual tack at the end of your post which is to suggest that my shortcomings are not my fault; they are merely due to a defecive "process". Anyway, I posit that anyone who listens to music every day or plays an instrument, and who attends live concerts, and who says he or she is a music lover, IS a music lover. Most music lovers stay away from this Forum for good reason.
|
Dear @lewm : I never said you are not a MUSIC lover and if you understand that was only a bad explanation for my part but was not my attitude because I know for sire that as me you are first than all a MUSIC lover. Apologize for that.
Now, every one has a " test proccess " my developed test proccess is not listening to the " forest " because as a whole we just are " lost " very easy, what I’m looking in that " forest " ( example ) is one specific " tree " in one or more of the LP tracks used in the test proccess where I know that " tree " better as the fingers of my hand. I have different trees depending what I want to test/to look for. I’m not looking for what is sounds in any LP very good because this is the " forest " and we can easy lost in there.
You can talk with F.Crowder who not only has a top top room/system but from some years now is a professional reviewer, I was at his place twice and from the first time ( with the Essential 3150 ) I ask him for 2-3 LPs and fortunatelly he owned and after that and even the high quality system I gave him an opinion of some anomaly that I listen on that system and that he till that moment did not take in count to fix it.
Same happens at A.Porter place ( 3150 too ) where with one of my LP tracks not one but twice detected some anomalies in his top room/system, first listening he and me and the second time with other 6 audiophiles including a Dagogo reviewer and in that session I was the only that detect a deficient SPL in one system channel
I can give you a lot more examples with gentlemans of that caliber and in all cases were my first listening session with that room/system that before were unknow for me. Other places that I remember because I meet fabolous gentlemans was in San Diego as Idaho too and Georgi and if they are still Agoners could attest what I’m posting here.
Now, detected I those anomalies because I’m a golden ears audiophile? NO far away from there, I detected because I know exactly what to look for I was looking for that tree and not the " forest " at random and that’s all.
My first hand experiences for overall 20 years developing my test proccess ( many times thise LP tracks appeared at random and from there I choosed. ) makes me to learn a lot and makes me to fix that test " tree " strategy because is more easy to look for a tiny/small specific part that look at random in the forest for that unknow tree.
Btw, I posted 4-5 times in the forum that I owned the RS A-1 and perhaps I was one of the first Agoners to do it. I owned around 3 months and sold.
More or less that’s what I do. Can I ask which is your test whole proccess or any one of Agoners in this thread ? We all must be always willing to learn from every member even that I know that I don’t like almost no body here and obviously no bo dy in wbf and other forums. Even that what I post is always trying to help in some way even if what the gentlemans read could teeel for them I’m " insulting " them, this is never my attitude but help.
R.
|
Yes, I now recall that you did mention somewhere in the past that you owned an RS-A1. I've never sold mine, but I don't use it for reasons stated. However, it too sounds better than it should given its shortcomings when you compare it to conventional tonearms.
My test process is based on more than 40 years of listening to a wide variety of turntables (5 TTs up and running), tonearms, and cartridges, and on recent years of being able to listen to any of several turntables, each with a different tonearm and cartridge, using one of two different audio systems. This enables me to make rapid transitions (I can move a cartridge between turntables or between two tonearms or between two completely different systems, for example, in minutes, in order to evaluate that cartridge in isolation. The same can be done with other elements of the chain.) But such evaluation is always limited in the sense that it is always subjective. I do own and use oscilloscopes (Techtronix, Sencore), audio frequency generators (HP), meters of all kinds, and a laboratory microscope, which I most often use for diagnostic and repair purposes. I also have trained as a vocalist and even performed several times, back 10 years ago or so. We attend live music performances at least once a month and more usually 2-3 times per month in the DC area, where there are a plethora of great performers. I am also a member/donor to the Kennedy Center, and we attend often.
This is all a useless argument between us. I say the Viv Float sounds very good and has some characteristics that are near to uniquely good among tonearms I have heard. I am interested in why it sounds good. And in the process, I have come to doubt certain gospels of modern pivoted tonearm design and the origins of these "gospel truths". In contrast, you say the Viv simply cannot be good. Let's agree to disagree without disparaging each other's qualifications to have an opinion. That's what you just did do, despite your follow-up claims to the contrary.
|
@lewm : Thank's to share your proccess that's way different from mine, I did my test comparison almost the same way than you due that one time I had 10 tonearms/cartridges operating in my system but those kind of test proccess was so many years ago that I can't remember for sure when I left to dii it.
My " tree " instead " forest " test proccess is a way simple and I don't need any other tool than the ears because when you know exactly what to look for the ears are the best tool under the audio world and way faster than the normal " forest " procces almost all audiophiles use.
I remember that first time at A.Porter time I took no more than 10 minutes to note a system fault and another 10 minutes to fixed and A.Porter agree on that " fixed ".
In Idaho I was seated " against " MBL speakers, Technics SP-10MK3, Schroeder tonearm, tube amps by the great regarded designer that unfortunatelly pass away and that at this moment can't remember his name and the cartridge was the SS Straing Gauge and the owner had the LP I need it and he did it and my rigth first impression ( first 5 minutes. ) was a truly Impressive but then I ask that gentleman that in that LP I need to listen a specific track and after listened I was totally sure that those HF were wrong: all these in 15 minutes and over the time all SG owners confirmed what I knew before they. After half hour he changed cartridge to listen the Lyra Olympos and thigs changed for the better through the Essential 3160. The system owner was deep founded with the SG and I try don't insist in other way but have some fun just listening MUSIC.
Btw, I listening for the first time a Rockport TT an Acapella top speakers with F.Crowder that I named.
Lew I did and do not try in anyway to " disparaging " you . I was almost sure and that's why I ask you to share your proccess that that was your proccess.
When I said that's not your fault I posted that not to be condescend with you because I know I'm not condescend with no body: this is not the way I'm and sorry for that: I'm straigth/direct no matters what.
In my proccess I'm not looking for what sounds good or excellent but the other way around: look for specific " recording errors " in specific LP tracks. With my " trees " I can in no more than 1 hour prove/detect that the VIV is wrong no matter what and with out need to measure nothing. That is not my capacity but the whole test proccess capacities.
I'm not conceited in anyway and that's why I posted audiophiles names/places and no my ears are no better than yours but just " truer " thank's to the proccess estrategy.
R.
|
So if you ever get to listen to the Viv Lab tonearm under conditions that are familiar to you from past experience, and if you can manage to divorce yourself from pre-formed opinion, I would be very interested to know what you think of it. Until then, you cannot add anything, because we know already about its theoretical shortcomings.
|
" you cannot add anything, because we know already about its theoretical shortcomings. "
That theorethical is a fact and I posted that I was looking for an explanation why the audiophiles like t and that explanation that VIV owners can’t do the necessary " autopsy " as a " forensic " does due that no one of you have that kind of " tree " whole proccess tests. So, no one can’t find out that " why " if does not has that critical test proccess and that’s why you have not explanation about till today.
My advise is that you start to develop that test proccess and then maybe you can have your explanation not before.
At the ned there is no plausible explanation due that no one can prove that does not exist that tracking additional distortions.
You took the VIV flag and for your posts seems to me that you are even to " die for that flag ", well it's you.
R.
|
I’m reviewing on line reviews of the tonearm now. There is a commonality of opinion about the sonic virtues, and I hear it the same way. Must be something to that. I earlier reported that the base weighs 2 lbs, so as to firmly locate the pivot. I was wrong; the base weighs 2 kg or 4.4 lbs.
|
I don't claim to know in the scientific sense why the Viv tonearm sounds very good with every cartridge, but here is some food for though:
(1) TAE. While the Viv and all other underhung tonearms with zero headshell offset does exhibit much higher TAE than can be achieved with an overhung/offset headshell, there are some mitigating factors, even assuming TAE is a major determinant of high SQ. For example, my 9-inch Viv would be expected to exhibit about 9 degrees of TAE at the outermost grooves and about -9 degrees of TAE at the innermost grooves, assuming the playing surface of the average LP is about 3 inches across (the radius of the LP from outer to spindle). This is assuming you set up the tonearm such that the single null point occurs in the center or middle of the playable surface. At that point, TAE=0. Thus TAE is very gradually changing from +9 degrees down to zero degrees and then further "down" to -9 degrees near the runout grooves. The change in TAE is linear (but on the arc of the stylus). If you consider only the middle inch of the playable surface, TAE goes from about 3 degrees through the zero null point to -3 degrees. This is about what you get with a well aligned conventional tonearm. Possibly, the continuousness of the sound from the Viv has to do with the linear nature of the change in TAE. Conventional tonearms generate TAE that goes up and down and up and down across the surface of an LP. Maybe that is not so good, even though lower in magnitude than a UH tonearm.
(2) Skating. The skating force generated by the Viv and other UH tonearms is directly proportional to TAE, because the headshell does not add to the skating force. Whereas, for conventional tonearms, the headshell offset angle is the major cause of skating PLUS the effect of any TAE. It thus has been shown that a conventional 9-inch tonearm generates about 2.5 to 3X more skating force than does a 9-inch UH tonearm. And just as with TAE, the side force generated by a UH tonearm has its maxima at the outermost and innermost grooves, but at the null point, the direction of the side force changes by 180 degrees, pulling the tonearm outward instead of inwards. This makes the side force very low on either side (outer vs inner) of the null point. Yes, we correct for the skating force of conventional tonearms with the application of AS, and we all know how imperfect that is. Moreover, AS is applied back near the pivot whereas skating happens at the stylus. This puts a force on the fulcrum of the cantilever that may be a source of distortion in overhung tonearms.
These are my thoughts. Raul says I cannot justify what I hear from the Viv in "audiophile" terms. (I won't sully the word "scientific".) But there actually are things to think about here.
|
@lewm : It's way " pity " ( for say the least ) that all the other owners that already posted in this thread just let you ALONE in the discussion.
My take for that is that all them do not care if the design is totally wrong but that they like it as you but exist a " but ": the difference between you and all them is that you are the only that like it but even that you are looking why a wrong design like it. Yoi are chasing " explanations " as the ones you posted and that rpoves nothing in favor of what you are looking for.
Again, instead to " lost " some timie posting here use that time to develop a sure/true test overall proccess as I did it 20+ years ago
Lew, how can you explain it that two audiophiles as José and I could designed the Essential 3150 unit is high quality reproduction levels with out resources as true audio electronics manufacturers. Because José and I are only two people appasinated with MUSIC and MUSIC reproduction at home and not in the audio market, this was at " random "?
Yes, technically José is very good but it's not enough to make the design because that design must be voiced in high resolution rooms/systems and that voicing mainly belongs to me.
The developed tests proccess permited us to choose between diferent manufacturer transistor models/resistors/capacitors/ and the like ( obviously that were several kind of measurements on all those ) and after test the " rigth " parts the need it to beeen assembled on the boards and after that to make " thousands " of listening tests in different room/systems. With out that proccess we just can't made it with that quality levels.
But after the Essential 3150 came the Essential 3160 that you own ( so you know exactly what I'm talking about. ) and rigth now ( with out be conceited ) the Essential 3180 that beats the 3160 and almost other unit in the today phonolinepreamp market and a serious challenge for any today market unit. You name it and can be sure that overall can't beats the Essential 3180.
That's why I insiste in your proccess developing with or with out the VIV subject.
R.
|
My previous post was not meant for you or your comment, but of course you are welcome to comment. Your response reveals just how close-minded you are on this subject. That’s fine. My post was meant to elicit comments or ideas from others who actually want to think on this subject. Dave and I have been trading emails on this subject for the last few days, and he has some interesting ideas as well. See if you can borrow a Viv tonearm and give it a listen. Then come back and tell me what you hear. You can send me a private email if you like. Until then, silence is golden, "for say the least".
|
All the other owners of the Viv, will undoubtedly have their own agendas for the use of their time, using their limitation in contributing posts to add to the inefficacy that this ongoing discussion is creating, is certainly not a substantiation that there is a lack of conviction to the ownership and usage of the 'Viv'.
Extending to other forums and one in particular, 'Shakti', from 'What's Best Forum' has expressed a very worthwhile experience with their usage of the 'Viv'. There are very limited in number individuals who share this persons knowledge about and experiences of using Vinyl Replay ancillaries. A recent post referred to their continued interest and that they will be looking into methods to enable to be used in present set ups.
Even though not a direct comparison to @lewm descriptions, there is plenty of commonality in the feel good and positivity the usage of this arm is able to generate.
I fully get this euphoria, as I can relate to it from the change toward and then usage of a Tonearm I adopted to be used over other respected Branded Models.
As said previously, this thread is to become an uphill climb for certain contributors, life is certainly too short for this one as a hike.
|
@lewm, well both of us are in some way " closed mine " because if I need to listen VIV youuuuu need to develop a way better tests proccess. When do you start to do it?
I'm not willing to buy a VIV first because I don't need a tonear my self design is very good but I woned over 20 tonearm and still own a good number and second because my common sense says so and my curiosity level is way lower that yours mine is ZERO.
R.
|
Over on Vinyl Asylum, there was a congenial discussion of underhung tonearms back in 2018-19, in relation to the introduction by Yamaha of their GT5000 turntable which comes with a straight, underhung tonearm. I kind of wish I knew then what I know now about the Viv, but you can read some thoughts on the pros and cons. Interestingly, John Ellison, who is certainly a ranking guru, comes down on the negative side, but in an earlier post, not included here, he admitted that he very much liked the RS Labs RS-A1. What I would say now to JE is that I am not comparing the Viv sound to that of hi-rez digital, which he often does with vinyl; I am comparing it to other conventional overhung tonearms. And to my ears, the Viv might come a bit closer to the master tape/digital ideal of low distortion.
https://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=vinyl&n=1173526&highlight=viv+float&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dcables%26searchtext%3DChoseal
|
@rauliruegas
I'm still here Raul, enjoying the banter.
@lewm
Not that I should question your cleverness, but the only way I have ever been comfortable with an audio assessment is to do rapid AB comparisons. I have a new method which you will hate but @intactaudio will appreciate. If I want to compare two cartridges everything else in the chain has to be identical. I record both cartridges to my hard drive in 24/192 playing the same record. I can run both files at the same time and switch back and forth with the remote. You can compare any analog source this way.
Intactaudio, I recommend that people who have very small or no record collection at all should not get started in vinyl. It is problematic from a number of perspectives and silly expensive. It is for hobbyists like Lew, Raul and myself, people who already have insanely large vinyl collections who have to play them with something. We are like little old ladies around a little glass table at teatime discussing our medical issues.
|
I made an error in my post of 10/27 at 3:10 PM. The TAE of a 9-inch UH tonearm would not range between +9 degrees and -9 degrees, while passing through TAE =0, because the radius of an LP at outer grooves vs inner grooves is so radically different. Because the radius at the inner grooves is much less than outer, making for a tighter smaller circle at the innermost grooves, TAE at inner grooves would be higher than it is at outer grooves, even when you align for a null at the midpoint of the playing surface. That consideration is what leads to the very complex equations for TAE derived by Lofgren and others. You can see this easily in the graphs posted above by Intact Audio (Dave). John Ellison posted graphs showing TAE for a 16-inch UH tonearm over on VA, perhaps included in the thread I referenced. His graphs also show the effect. This is why the template for the Viv puts the single null point nearest to the innermost grooves, 90mm from the spindle.
|
