Fidelity Research FR64s Headshell dilemma

I use and like SAEC SS-300 mat, but never tried those tonearms, they are very very popular here, but it's knife-edge bearing design. Some people like them, i am not interested in SAEC tonearms, too many great tonearms available. 

they disappeared not due to geometry but due to CD era.
https://www.analogplanet.com/content/saec-again-producing-classic-double-knife-edge-bearing-tone-arm

I have experimented with my 308SX they weird geometry works better that Stevenson. I have tried to move it to Stevenson although it tracks worse than with SAEC weird one, I am not expert like Raul but I really like test disks :)

Dear @bukanona : please correct me if I’m wrong. I just finished to analize what SAEC did it for the cartridge/tonearm alignment on each of his models and I took as an example your 308SX.

Thank’s that you brought out here the SAEC tonearm alignments finally I think I understand what they did it, at least with your model and my 8000 one.

For me is an was not so easy to discern this unique tonearm alignment data " novelty "/manipulation and maybe it’s the same way for almost all gentlemans here and elsewhere.

Now what they did it, that seems to me with out be totally sure ( only SAEC people of those times know about. ), with your 308SX is in the next link. I took as EL 240mm, overhang 5mm and offset angle 12° that are SAEC specs, I hope is rigth. Ok. they took both: must inner groove radio and must outer groove radius totally out of the LP recorded surface. Both around 50mm ( a little lower than that but the calculator does not permits lower " number ". ) that using the vinylengine calculator gives as result those parameters values ( almost there. ):

https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=el&a1lv=240&a1=la&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=el&a2lv=240&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=el&a3lv=240&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=el&a4lv=240&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&rs=12&rsv=&og=cus&ogv=50.001&ig=cus&igv=50&cal=y&submit=calculate


that calculator was not made it to that kind of " novelty " so we can’t have the diagrams/graphics ( looks like tracking distortion/error gone very high .) about but we almost there.

Anyway, a pain in the ass to align a cartridge with the SAEC specs. As I told you what I use it in the 506-30 and 407-23 was Löfgren and this is what you can do too because for me wroks just fine and with no troble of any way.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Using other calculator it confirms that SAEC made it a " deep " manipulation with the must inner/outer groove radius.

In this other calculator I used 37.4mm and 66.9mm and the off set angle and overhang coincide with SAEC specs.

So manipulations/combinations of both equations groove radius will change everything and we can be " everywhere " doing that. Go figure.

R.

Of course, no diagram/graphics in teh vinilengine calculator because the null points are inside the LP label not in the usable LP surface.

R.

Dear friends: The whole cartridge/tonearm alignment subject is really important to understand it to stop that after market items follows taking advantage of our low level knowledge and I say that because that's exactly the history of after market protractors and " developed " better " kind of alignments " when in reality that does not gives true advantages.

SAT comes with its own kind of alignment, VPI the same, already looks SAEC, all japanese tonearms, uni-din and many more.

All that diversity only makes to us things more complecated when we don't understand in precise way the whole subject and we can look at the thread list in this forum and we will found out " hundred " of threads asking on that alignment subject and looking for the best.

In reality does not exist the best, in any kind of alignment exist compromises. 
No one of us needs something different to Löfgren A/Baerwald or/and Löfgren B ( of course that the stupid Setevenson one is totally out of question if we are serious on the main subject and really cares about MUSIC. ). All the other alignments can't gives us a true advantage that we can detect.

Please read this where I show what is happening with tracking distortion levels inside Lófgren alignment. I took LP grooves information away of null points because as a nearer we are of null point is totally and extremelly imposible to detect any differences between recorded information in the grooves. This is only and example with a tonearm with EL 254mm.:

tracking distortion between 90mm. and 100mm ( 1cm. of LP surface recorded area. ) is 0.12%.
Maybe some of you can say: hey I can detect that tracking distortion level difference !. As I said maybe, I know I can't do it.

Now, that level of distortion is at 90mm-100mm but when playing an LP the cartridge rides the grooves with continuty: one after the next and so on.

The difference in tracking distortion level between 90mm and 91mm. is 0.008% that's the difference between: 0.553% and 0.545%.

Now, whom of you can detect 0.008% tracking distortion levels differences?. Obviously NO ONE CAN.

It's not only that the differences are so low but that the MUSIC we are listening are pércieved by us in a continue way what makes impossible to detect those kind of tracking distortion levels.

So why we oftencan post something like this: that the SAT alignment sounds better that in the same tonearm we align it with Löfgren one or uni-din or Cotter or VPI/Cotter or Clearaudio are better alignments when in reality are not.

And exist other issue when we are trying to make evaluations/comparisons between those kind of cartridge/tonearm alignments:

each time we change from one alignment to other at least we need to change the cartridge position and after that we need to res-set all cartridge/tonearm parameters: VTA/SRA, VTF, Azymuth, AS and the like and is imposible that with the new cartridge alignment the tiny stylus tip parameters will coincide with the precise and exactly same accuracy that before the change to the new alignment.

That's why I say that Löfgren A/Baerwald or/and Löfgren B is all what we need no maters what.

Don't you think? or exist something that I'm not seeing because ceratinly I can be wrong but today this is my take and invite you to think about and post your thoughts on the overall subject.

So wich protractor need we? I think that MINTLP is more than enough and with the need it accuracy for a tonearm, if we own more than one tonearm then we need additional MINTLP protractors: each for each tonearm. Why sped more money for any other protractor? makes no sense to me. Of course that we can use the self tonearm protractor if is totally accurated ( at least at the MINTLP level. ) and no Stevenson there.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

So, there is no better cartridge/alignment geometry but we always listen differences when we make changes and those differences are present because the inaccuracies between the cartridge overall set up parameters at each alignment changes. Does not exist exactly the same accuracy level at each time we do all those.

Example between LÖfgren A and B in that same tonearm at 130mm recorded LP surface position:

0.210% vs 0.274% on tracking distortion with a difference: 0.064%. You just can't detect it.

R.

Dear Raul,

No one of us needs something different to Löfgren A/Baerwald or/and Löfgren B ( of course that the stupid Setevenson one is totally out of question if we are serious on the main subject and really cares about MUSIC.).

tracking distortion between 90mm. and 100mm ( 1cm. of LP surface recorded area. ) is 0.12%.
Maybe some of you can say: hey I can detect that tracking distortion level difference !. As I said maybe, I know I can’t do it.

According to your calculation sample:
https://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=el&a1lv=245&a...

Maximum Tracking distortion between Löfgren A/Baerwald (0.6%) and Stevenson (0.73%) is 0.13%.
Average RMS distortion between Löfgren A/Baerwald (0.39%) and Stevenson (0.48%) is 0.09%.

So, are there any special, hidden "Stevenson" distortions, that you can detect?

You have to made your home work. The data you posted are average or the maximum not at a specific groove position as my examples between Löfgren A and B. I know I can’t detect 0.09% or 0.13% differences in tracking distortions. I can detect a little higher than those values.

So, make your job and you will answer that question.

In the other side is a lot more easy to know/detect the Stevenson distortions against any other kind of alignment due that over the 99% of the recorded LP surface always exist/has higher level of tracking distortions. You not only can measure but can listen if you have a good overall bullet proof evaluation/comparison process along high resolution room/system and experience on what to look for. If you have all those ( self training. ) you can do it but the more important is that you make your self example with mesurements about and compared vs Löfgren B. We can’t learn and understand it in other way. Well maybe be you don’t need to learn and already do it and if it’s the case then sorry for my kind of answer. So let me know about or:
please do the job and come back to share your findings and you will know that does not exist " hidden " distortions.

R.

Btw, this is what I posted here before:


"" Perhaps some of us can’t detect those distortions levels ( any ) but exist and are affecting the cartridge signal quality levels. We have to remember that in all the links room/system are developed several kind of distortions/noises/colorations and the like, this is that exist an accumulative distortions levels all over that chain. So if we can put at minimum the ones developed through the cartridge/tonearm alignment set up this means we are in the rigth " road ".

and I have to add that our mind/brain will be or stay more " calm " because we have lower distortion levels and more detectable MUSIC information that with higher distortions that " hidden " part of that MUSIC information or made it a little imprecise.

Seems to me that instead to coloborate/help or enrich the overall subject you are looking where I’m wrong or something like that: am I rigth/true to think that way?.

Now, I will try to understand your attitude behind your post. If you are not looking for where I’m wrong then could means that you use Stevenson alignment: do you?

Today I did some observations and decided that topmost exact what I can squeeze is ~ 0.5 mm for set up. Maybe some day Mitutoyo can do special caliper for the purpose? 

Dear @lbelchev : A tip for your calculations and with 245mm. on EL. At recorded LP surface 80mm. position the tracking distortion Löfgren B is 0.350% and Stevenson 0.735%. Difference: 0.385% higher on ST. At 90mm. is over 0.25%

If you know what to look for those differences levels are detectable and helps too that over all the recorded LP surface the ST tracking distortions are higher too.

Of course that each one of us can take any choice we want it. What we can do is limitless and only " stopped " by our each one common sense. Now, through the time to comes " things " could change and we can take different choices to the ones we choosed today Everything is in constant movement and we can't know for sure what to expect in the audio future especially with analog/LP.

R.

The thread turned to the monologue of one person pretending to know everything better than others, but apart from the numbers claimed to be audible distortion i want to remind that there any many other components in analog chain with higher distortion than distortion caused by cartridge alignment. And people live with it and can't detect it. 

Of course that person can head all the distortion in this world and it's a problem for him if someone can't hear it (included world famous cartridge/tonearm designers).

Modern tonearm designers comes up with new ideas and no one in the reviewers world can't detect that horrible distortion for some reason, but he knows why, the answer is "they are s.......d people". They are all have to grow up to the level of our own audiogon preacher who knows everything better. 

ViV Laboratory is another example, it's straight tonearm with underhang (not overhand). And yes, the cartridge/cantilever position is also straight in this tonearm. The don't give a F about Baerwald alignment and all reviews are positive. 

Dear chakster, I hope you are not refering to me as the person
who knows everything better(grin). 
In order to get your simpathy I want to mention to use the
same SAEC mat. In addition and by assumption that my memory
still function I think to remember that SAEC tonerams are made
by only considering the arms themselfs in particular regarding
their ''balance''. They were not interested in records and their
peculiarities. Probaly by an attempt to avoid toenearm geometry
disputes . As you can see this attempt is ignored in order to
keep those disputes alive. BTW I have chosen hedshells in which
any cart can be adjusted exactly according to their effective length. 

@nandric haha, no i didn't mean any of your posts here :) 

I remember Yamaha YSA-2 straight tonearm with no offset, here is a discussion. 

 

Dear chakster, You forget to post the picture of the ''linear carrier''
of this Yamaha invention. Should we ask all 4 owners  of
ET-2 (long) thread for explanation? Chris is my other Slavic 
brother always willing to answer any question. I assume that ET-2
is better arm otherwise there would be no such long thread about
this one. 

This is incredible and in the stupidity land for say the least.

In the page 2 he promises:

"" I’m really tired of this pointless thread, you can continue without me, thanks. ""

"" I want to quit from this discussion..""



obviously he not even can honor his words. After that:


""" I don’t read Rauls posts, not interested. """


Really? and follows posting about ! ! ! ? ? as I said in the stupidity land world. Some like to live there all their life. Pity.

In my country people say:

"" a talk-talk-talk man falls down before a cripple one ""


R.

@nandric this is not a linear tracking tonearm, look here (no offset angle at the headshell), a very old document here.

Yamaha is short and straight tonearm as you can see, yamaha is an old tonearm, but look at the modern high-end from ViV Lab (same concept with underhang and straight position of the cartridge in the headshell).

Now if anyone can hear distortion in this video please wright back

Tonearm manufacturers breaking the rules and they are doing it for decades, who cares about that Baerwald ? Who would buy those tonearms if they are not good ? 

Remember Swedish SAT tonearm ? 

Dear chakster, I am not (yet) blind. I was joking abou ''linearity''
because this Yamaha is straight. 
I hope chris wii be more humorous than you. 

Who is Chris then ? @nandric

Dear chakster, Shakespeare was the first who asked the question:
''what is a name?'' He thought about the rose as example because
whatever the name the ''object itself'' will be recognized by its sent.
Later logicians declared that names miss ''predicative function'' and
only refer . Aka they don't have a meaning .
However we ofthen hear that someone has an ''nice name''. Anyway
we all are suposed to have an ''user name'' otherwise we can't
participate in this forum. Well I personaly think that ''chris'' is an
''nice name'' but chris himself prefer , say, chemical or medical
kinds of names so he has chosen :" ct 0517''. Nobody can remember
such ''name'' and you are proving this whitout knowing that you do.
I have seen many threads in which you both participated. So you
kind of know who chris is without knowing his real name. For me
it is more easy to address him as chris than to check every time 
his ,say, ''chemical name''.





 

@lohanimal

The factory headshell does present a dilemma - if you do not have one.
From the FR64/66 owners manual.

The distance from the front of the head shell to the stylus tip should be adjusted so that it is 7mm.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/i3qfaWuzRc2zNUVh9

*********************************

Now a "dilemma" for me, when I owned this tonearm, was that the designer goes on to say.

A difference of 1mm more or less in this distance will not present any practical problems.

So why are you guys going to what appears to be great effort in detail for measurements, when it appears the designer himself, based on the design of this tonearm, did not think that a couple of millimetres either way, was that important ?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

*********************************

Nikola - No chemical implications re: username. I joined this forum on May 17, some years ago.

Dear chris, Back then it was not usual to mention the number of
contriburions after one's name. I can add 2007 to my user name
but the number of my contribuions is much higher . So I will not
follow your example (grin). 

As a stupid man follows talking it's obvious that the posibilities to tals more stupid " things " goes higher and higher:


"""  who cares about that Baerwald ? Who would buy those tonearms if they are not good ?

Remember Swedish SAT tonearm ?  ""

It cares the people that understand the overall alignment subject that provided Löfgren A/Baerwald solution and Löfgren B solution. As a fact the extremely expensive SAT tonearm designer choosed Löfgren A/Baerwald.

Btw, almost all tonearm buyers buy their tonearm taking in count many characteristics on its design, many but the kind of alignment choosed by the designer because almost any of them know they can use what ever they want it.

R.

Dear @ct0517 : "" based on the design of this tonearm, did not think that a couple of millimetres either way, was that important ? ""

your whole statement posted and coming from you has no real sense because the design of any pivoted tonearm just not takes in count a comment like that.

That designer statement only confirms his very low/poor knowledge levels of the implications of 1mm-2mm differences in the overhang set up.
Yes he said it that way ( it comes in the instruction manual. ) the question is: why did it? when any pivoted tonearm can’t be designed for that 1mm difference in overhang can't makes a difference at all even with his ST choosed alignment.
Always will be a real difference that maybe we can’t detect it the quality level of what we listen of what that difference makes in tracking error and tracking distortions but are there.

Do you know which is the only difference between Löfgren A/Baerwald and Löfgren B alignments? the only difference is: around 0.5mm on the calculated overhang ( obviously that because are two different kind of alignments the null points calculated are different but with no relationship with the overhang calculated. ).

The FR designer not break the rules on the alignment issue it’s only that he just can’t understand it. His overall tonearm design has a lot of faulty/mistakes in what cartridge needs and asks to the tonearm for that cartridge can shows it at its best.

Everything is important in the cartridge/tonearm geometry alignment and its implications in the quality level we will listen with but the more important and main subject about is that we pivoted tonearm owners can understand it the true behind and the reality behind the overall tonearm alignments. This is the reall issue.

Chris, for my part I don’t care per sé about those alignment measurements I’m trying only to explain those important an critical implications.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Stylus shapes.  By way of introduction. Peter wanted to impress
his friend John with his new swimmming pool. After some time he
asked: ''and what do you think?'' John; ''well how should I put
it but is 3x3 m, not to small?'' Peter: ''you idiot the pool is 30 m.
deep!''
Now assume that you can hear , say, 14 Khz.  Assuming that
you are not from Mexico so not able to hear with you bones
what sense makes to you that your stylus can reach 40 Khz? 
Because of my age I can't hear anything above 11Khz.
I think that I can live with even conical kind which btw is in
my Magic Diamond. Reto Andreoli  the desigenr of Magic diamond
is in the busieness of cart making since his 15 year of age and 
learned the trade by Australian brothers. Nobody ever complained
about hight frequencies of this cart. To assume to know better one
should show his accomplishments not verbal capabilites. 

To cut through the other stuff, Lohanimal, the statement you quoted does not indicate that one MUST use an FR headshell with an FR tonearm.  Is that what you meant to say?  Your quote from the owners manual only would stipulate that IF one is using an FR headshell, THEN one should place the stylus tip 7mm behind the front edge of the headshell.  This helpful hint does not prohibit the use of other headshells, so long as they properly fit the bayonet mount.  If using some other brand, one would simply need an alignment gauge for setting overhang.  And anyway, it would be at least as much of a pain in the ass to measure that 7mm as to use a proper alignment gauge, maybe worse.
As to accuracy, I think the best most of us can do is within 1mm net error (or +/-0.5mm, in other words), between setting P2S and overhang.  If you get it that close, you've done well.  Then there's the longitudinal angle of the cantilever with respect to the particular algorithm.  That requires patience.

I use an plastic caliper to determine stylus distance in any
of my headshells. The measured distance can then be used
by each headshell. To check the result I use Mint tractors for
each of my 3 tonearms. No problem at all to get this within
1mm value.

I think I have the headshell that you're looking for. It's unused & still in the packaging. Not sure how to get this message to you other than to post here.  

Just one comment about the much misunderstood underhung group of tonearms. There are only a very few of them that I know about: RS Labs RS-A1, Viv Float, and the Yamaha. Can anyone name others? These are all straight tonearms with no headshell offset, and they all underhang the spindle. As such, only one single null point is possible on the surface of the LP. The best way to set them up is to arrange to place the null point (cantilever parallel to grooves) somewhere at or near the middle of the distance from outermost groove to innermost groove. These tonearms exhibit a great deal of tracking angle error (TAE) at the outermost grooves, more than one would ever calculate for a conventional overhung pivoted tonearm. TAE will be inversely proportional to the pivot to stylus distance. TAE then diminishes linearly as the stylus tip approaches the single null point. Also the TAE results in a skating force that is similar to conventional skating force, with a net vector directed toward the spindle. That skating force also diminishes linearly with distance from the single null point. With this type of tonearm, at the single null point, skating force is also zero for that one instant. This is different from conventional tonearms, because in that case skating force is never zero; even at the null points, there is skating force due to headshell offset. Once the underhung tonearm has passed through its single null point, TAE begins to increase again in a linear fashion, as the stylus approaches the innermost groove. BUT the vector direction of the skating force that goes with it is in the opposite direction, pulling stylus tip outward. That is why you won’t find an anti-skate device on an underhung tonearm; it would be very difficult to imagine an anti-skate mechanism that would "know" when to change direction.
Like I said, these tonearms do exhibit a lot of TAE, but TAE does not wax and wane as it does with conventional pivoted tonearms, and there is a period around the null point where the skating force and TAE are very low to nil. The understanding of these tonearms is complicated by some of the foolish and patently false claims made by their makers. The RS Labs instructions say that there is no skating force with their tonearm, which is wrong, for one example. But on the other hand, they sound more free of artifacts that one associates with TAE and skating force than all but some of the best linear trackers, without the complexity associated with those types. I wish there were more underhung tonearms from which to choose. I occasionally use the RS Labs, but I shy away from it because of its other oddities and potential danger to cartridges. But the RS Labs occasionally can sound like a master tape in its very stable imaging and low audible distortion.  This observation leads me to question the wisdom of offsetting the headshell in order to achieve two null points on the surface of the LP.  This results in a skating force due to the offset angle and in TAE that varies up and down in magnitude across the surface of the LP.  Perhaps the variations in TAE effected by headshell offset angle and overhang make any resulting distortions more audible than they would be if the changes were more linear, as with an underhung tonearm.  After all, Baerwald and Lofgren published their math in the late 1930s or early 1940s.  If they even listened to music, they were doing so with wide-groove mono shellacs playing at 78 rpm (I am guessing).  They couldn't know what the future of the art form would be.  Why do we have to cling to their old ideas?

@lewm  : Sorry, your post is useless, for say the least, when the 99.99% of the pivoted vintage and today tonearms are/were designed with that offset angle and obviously overhang figure.

So, ? ? ?  ! !  ? ? ? 

Obviously you can post what ever you want it and my post is not for you or any one else chime on it. But it's a free world.

R.

auliruegas

@lewm : Sorry, your post is useless, for say the least, when the 99.99% of the pivoted vintage and today tonearms are/were designed with that offset angle and obviously overhang figure.

I’m not sure why you think it’s useless. Although I’ve never heard an underhung arm, many who have praise their sonics. The underhung arm certainly calls into question some of the common assumptions about LP playback, particularly the audibility of tracking error. By extension, that is one reason I’ve never cared for linear tracking arms. All that extra complication - for what? It’s not as though you’re likely to hear tracking error in a properly installed conventional offset overhung arm.

Yes, Raul, it is useless.  You cannot use it to make a campfire or to deliver a baby or change a tire.  All of this discussion is useless, on that level.  I'm sorry if I offended you by my choice of subject.  But can you see how all the blather about effective length, pivot to spindle distance, headshell offset angle, etc, etc, can be put to rest if you think about the mechanics of an underhung tonearm?  There are many misconceptions surrounding that type of tonearm, and I thought it was relevant to describe here what they can and cannot do, for anyone who is interested. It is indeed a pity that there are not more underhung tonearms from which to choose.  Like you say, it is indeed a free country, if not everywhere a free world.

@lewm 
No need to apologise for your post on underhung alignment.

In fact, for my 68 Conway Twitty 45rpm singles, underhung alignment works beautifully - the 2-3 minute tracks are smack bang in the middle of a 12 inch record.

As a medical doctor you would know that even if something doesn't work, understanding why can be invaluable.

Clearly Raul does not understand how scientific debate can lead to great new discoveries. 

I’ve never cared for linear tracking arms. All that extra complication - for what? It’s not as though you’re likely to hear tracking error in a properly installed conventional offset overhung arm.

Obviously you cant hear it, but others can.

No pivoted arm can reproduce the soundstage transparency and accuracy of a linear tracker, for example with choral music recorded in a church environment I can clearly hear the full extent of the room, and its aural impact.

Best you get rid of your CD player, it's a linear tracker.

I was obviously not familiar with the underhung tonearm concept (being a noob with vinyl related topics, not like most of you anyway) but Lew's post it is very interesting conceptually and to me especially with the description of forces (which again all of you are familiar with) but reading it I just understand the 3 concepts of underhung, linear tracking and S shaped and the repercussion it has on tracking error.Thank you Lew

dover

Obviously you cant hear it, but others can.

Obviously?
Perhaps you should read more carefully. I didn’t say I couldn’t hear it.

No pivoted arm can reproduce the soundstage transparency and accuracy of a linear tracker ...

That’s quite a claim! What arms have you used to test that belief? In particular, I’d be interested in which 12-inch arms you’ve tried.

... for example with choral music recorded in a church environment I can clearly hear the full extent of the room, and its aural impact.

I can do that with a pivoted arm.

Best you get rid of your CD player, it’s a linear tracker.

It looks like you’re just looking for an argument.
We’re not talking about CD players here, but turntables.

Dear @dover @cleeds @lewm : Dover/Cleeds I see that both of you don’t get it:

" when the 99.99% of the pivoted vintage and today tonearms are/were designed with that offset angle and obviously overhang figure. ""

That’s why is useless till you can convince each single tonearm manufacturer as SAT, Schroeder, Triplanar, SME, Durand, Origin Live, Rega, Technics, Reed, Ortofon, EMT, Acoustic Signature, Brinkmann, Graham, Kuzma, Linn, Roksan VPI, etc, etc. that all are wrong and that no one will buy their tonearms till they manufacture the underhung ones.

Got it why is useless.?

Lewm, I owned the RS Labs that I bougth several years ago and that certainly is not a discovery because exist a lot information on the issue by many many years ago. I had that tonearm just when appeared in the market.

Dover, maybe I don’t know how to lead a scientific issue but certainly I´m not interested to participate in a dialogue on something that is futile because the audio industry will not makes changes about only because 6 audiophiles commented in " scientific " way on the underhung tonearm subject. You can be sure that all of us will been dead and the tonearms will stay just like today.

Dover been you a scientist/especialist in the subject I'm sure that you already made the changes in your system where your " mouth " is and today  you have mounted only underhung tonearms. Rigth?  I don't know if Lewm made it too. 

As I said, useless/futile.

R.

Raul, I mentioned in my long post that although I do own the RS Labs tonearm, I don't use it much, for the other reasons cited.  It is "tricky" to use, has no cueing device, and places the cartridge in jeopardy, because the unipivot bearing does not capture the arm wand in place. If you jostle the body of the tonearm, the whole arm wand is apt to fall off its pivot and could destroy the cartridge.  The Ortofon MC7500 that I bought from you never sounded better than when mounted in the RS Labs, on the other hand.  I just didn't have the guts to use it that way long term.  Because I do like the sonics of the RS Labs, I was attracted to the Viv Float, a more sensible alternative. However, the Viv is very expensive, $6K-ish I think in the USA.  You can buy one in Tokyo for more like $3500, but that is still not "cheap".  I agonized over a purchase last time I was in Tokyo but did not pull the trigger. And the Viv has some other quirks that one would need to evaluate, like that oil bath bearing assembly. No, you are correct, underhung tonearms are not going to take over the world.  But if someone would just make one that is less gimmicky than either the RS Labs or the Viv, I think it would sell if the seller would accurately describe its characteristics to buyers.  The Yamaha tonearm, so far as I know, is only available together with their new turntable.  Now we are far away from a discussion of headshells.  Sorry to the OP.

rauliruegas

Dear @dover @cleeds @lewm : Dover/Cleeds I see that both of you don’t get it:" when the 99.99% of the pivoted vintage and today tonearms are/were designed with that offset angle and obviously overhang figure. "" That’s why is useless till you can convince each single tonearm manufacturer ... that all are wrong and that no one will buy their tonearms till they manufacture the underhung ones.

We don’t need to convince anyone of anything in order to discuss underhung arms here. Nor is this a matter of right or wrong - it’s a question of difference.

I´m not interested to participate in a dialogue on something that is futile because the audio industry will not makes changes about only because 6 audiophiles commented in " scientific " way ...

Then stop participating, Raul and - more importantly - please try to obstruct others from participating.

As an aside, I’ve always used conventional pivoted arms, and have never had an underhung arm or any of the various types of tangential arms. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t worthy of discussion.

No pivoted arm can reproduce the soundstage transparency and accuracy of a linear tracker

That’s quite a claim! What arms have you used to test that belief? In particular, I’d be interested in which 12-inch arms you’ve tried.

It’s not a claim, it is science. Less tracking error means there are less phase errors, less phase errors result in a more accurate reproduction of harmonics and more accurate phase and time, resulting in a more accurate and transparent soundstage.

With regard to your question on which arms I've owned, I currently own the following arms -
Eminent Technology ET2 {linear - modded extensively ), Fidelity Research FR64s, Naim Aro ( unipivot ), Dynavector 501 ( rebuilt to Baerwald specification ), SME 3012

12" Arms I have owned or set up and listened to extensively with a wide range of cartridges include SME V12, Moerch DP8 12" & SME 3012.

Similarly, I have also owned or set up on numerous occasions -
Kuzma 4Point11, Sumiko MDC800, Sumiko FT3, Syrinx PU3, Syrinx PU2, Helius Omega, Helius Cyalene, Well Tempered, Alphason HR100S, Zeta, Odyssey, Mayware, JH Reproducers, Hadcock 228, Goldmund T3 linear, Linn Ittok, Linn Ekos, Decca unipivot, Grace 707/747, to name a few. There are many others I’ve forgotten.

... for example with choral music recorded in a church environment I can clearly hear the full extent of the room, and its aural impact.

I can do that with a pivoted arm.

No you can't, as long as there is tracking error your soundstage reproduction is compromised for the abovementioned reasons.

Dover, You raise a question about which I have long wondered.  We discuss the "grave" consequences of tracking angle error as if they are factual, which is to say verified by actual experiments.  The claims for a correlation with distortion and phase anomalies make teleological sense, but do you know of any actual studies that have been done to correlate tracking angle error with those undesirable consequences?  That goes back to my mentioning the need for an LP encoding a single frequency from start to finish, so one could observe the effects of TAE directly.

No pivoted arm can reproduce the soundstage transparency and accuracy of a linear tracker

That’s quite a claim! What arms have you used to test that belief? In particular, I’d be interested in which 12-inch arms you’ve tried.

It’s not a claim, it is science. Less tracking error means there are less phase errors, less phase errors result in a more accurate reproduction of harmonics and more accurate phase and time, resulting in a more accurate and transparent soundstage.

You don’t say. And yet....

Every pivoted arm as it swings across a record has two points at which it is perfectly tangential. If the above is true then the "soundstage transparency and accuracy of a linear tracker" would be achieved, even if only at those two points.

Every record, as its played the sound stage will become more and more transparent and accurate, then less and less, then more and more again. If its such a big important difference then everyone would notice. No one would need to be told about it.

Is that the case? Not at all. In fact it seems the only people talking about this at all are promoting linear tracking arms as being so great - at solving this problem no one else cares or even knows about.

Therefore, the statement "No pivoted arm can reproduce the soundstage transparency and accuracy of a linear tracker" is what scientists and logicians refer to as, and pardon the technical language, BS.

dover

It’s not a claim, it is science. Less tracking error means there are less phase errors, less phase errors result in a more accurate reproduction of harmonics and more accurate phase and time, resulting in a more accurate and transparent soundstage.

The science is indisputable, of course. Tracking error is measurable and the geometry is actually pretty simple.

... as long as there is tracking error your soundstage reproduction is compromised for the above mentioned reasons.

Do you realize that your favored Eminent Technology ET2 is also subject to tracking error?
millercarbon

Every pivoted arm as it swings across a record has two points at which it is perfectly tangential.

Underhung arms have also been discussed here. They are tangential at only one point along the arc as the arm swings across the disc. Yet some who have heard them praise their sonics, suggesting achieving fidelity from a pickup arm involves much more than just reduction of tracking error.

... Every record, as its played the sound stage will become more and more transparent and accurate, then less and less, then more and more again. If its such a big important difference then everyone would notice ... Is that the case? Not at all. In fact it seems the only people talking about this at all are promoting linear tracking arms as being so great - at solving this problem no one else cares or even knows about.

That pretty much sums it up.
It would be interesting if @dover ever auditions an underhung arm. I plan to do that when the Covid era ends - just out of curiosity. I’m happy with my conventional pivoted arm.

Nandric, did you chase people off again?

Karma....

Karl D, not sure you'll see this, but I have a decent KSP sitting in a box waiting for me to figure something out...so I just bought a very nice FR 64S in a general auction (it was mounted on a Luxman PD-441 table)...and I have a PD-444 too...

I'm going tp try the RSP with the FR64s on the 444...not sure what that sauce will sound like.

Q: what head shell did you end up with for the FR64S? I looked at your gear and see that you've moved to a Kuzma TT, et al, so just wondering, as my experience is nil on all of this. Thanks. M-

KSP...I mean, Koetsu RSP.