Nikola, What's a "magnetic Reed"? |
I agree with Geoch on the issue of azimuth adjustment. I really like the Reed tonearms that rotate the headshell but not the arm tube. Geoch (and Nikola), are you saying that the 3P now adjusts azimuth by rotation of the arm tube? Does Vidimantas reveal why he made this change, if this is so? I think Geoch made a good guess as to his reasoning, but it would be interesting to hear it from "the horse's mouth". |
Dear Steve and Nikola, Thank you both for describing the 3P. I can't quite visualize the new way of adjusting azimuth, but I take your word(s) that there is no step backward, only forward with the 3P.
Steve, can you elaborate what you mean when you say that the azimuth adjustment on the TP causes "noise"? Since the TP cannot be had without that adjuster, I don't know how you can arrive at a conclusion that it is a culprit in causing noise. (I would think that to do that experiment, you need a TP with no azimuth adjuster, so you can compare the two to be able to blame the azimuth adjuster per se for noise.) I kind of agree that the TP azimuth adjuster has more of a theoretical issue with the way it works vs a real world one, provided the cartridge was reasonably well built and aligned in the first place.
Ldvalve, What I'm talking about is that with the Reed 2A cum azimuth adjuster, you twist only the cartridge mount about its vertical axis. This changes only azimuth. With the TP or any other tonearm that twists the arm tube (I think also the Talea), you are slightly changing VTA as well. Think about it. |
Yes, Steve's tome started out talking about azimuth, so when he got to talking about anti-skate (abbreviated "AS") I did not originally pick up on the change of subject. Mea culpa. Doug Deacon has also been a critic of the AS device on the TP, but Doug was talking about "resonance" (his word). Perhaps he really was alluding to the same phenomenon that concerned Steve. Since Steve's explanation makes more sense to me (anyway), I will take another look at the AS device to see what can be done about it, if anything. I am not sure that the tiny O-ring solution to excessive application of AS with the TP standard AS weight really does anything about the "noise" issue.
Nikola, I don't claim to be an expert on anything, except I always aspire to be an expert on the elements of my own audio system. It's an endless process, and one is never really "arrived", even in that microcosm. But I do know the difference between anti-skate and azimuth. |
There are now data on the Reed website that are interpreted to mean that the Red Cedar, Pernambucco, and one other wood are the three best in terms of lowered resonance. I need to go back and look at the data again, but I do not recall that the woods were compared to alu or stainless steel. Would like to have seen such data. Nevertheless, since Vidimantas himself seems to have narrowed down his preferences, I kind of wonder why he continues to offer six different varieties. Perhaps for those who are pig-headed. Not hard to find them, either. |
Chris, I don't know what you are getting at; it goes without saying that the armboard, the plinth, the coupling between bearing and tonearm or lack of same, etc, etc, will all have a further effect on sonics, beyond the choice of a material with which to make the arm wand. The base of the Reed is made of alu, so I would imagine that an alu armboard would work well, because there would be good energy transmission across the interface between arm base and armboard. I use slate; seems ok. Wonder what Vetterone thinks on that score.
Not that I care much, but it's "LewM" not LewN. |
No need to do that, Nikola.
I was merely alluding to the fact that on the website, Vidimantas himself brings up the issue of how different woods sound and also how wood in turn compares to various other materials. He then shows some interesting data to support the superiority of two or three wood types vs other wood types, but he does not show the data for metals. Presumably he did the experiments and found metals to be inferior in his test. I can accept his word for that. |
Dear Nikola, I think Sean and I were talking about the central structure that supports the pivot and is in turn bolted directly to the armboard. When you say "arm pod", do you refer to some other accessory that they manufacture for mounting the tonearm outboard from a turntable? Anyway, if the part that Sean and I are discussing is indeed made of stainless, then a stainless arm board would be ideal. Seems like Steve Dobbins agrees. Alu would be Ok too, since the energy transmission would be nearly as good as using SS, if not perfect. Ideally, I think a tonearm should be a single solid dense structural piece with the armboard or whatever is used to support it. |
Dear Nikola, As I recall you asked me whether I wanted you to inquire about Vidimantas' test results using aluminum or carbon fiber arm wands. I did not think it was important enough for you to go to that trouble.
I took my cue from the Kenwood L07D. The Kenwood has a very substantial brass and stainless puck-shaped base into which the vertical shaft of the tonearm is inserted. Then the shaft is gripped firmly into the brass and stainless puck by a ratcheting mechanism. The whole is also permanently affixed with the bearing cup by a very substantial steel girder. This is a subjective judgement, but I believe that one can hear the benefits of this structural strength in the way the L07D plays music. Note that other vintage Japanese tonearms also provided ways to achieve a solid heavy anchor for the tonearm in a material that resembles the tonearm structural material, e.g., Fidelity Research accessory base B60, SAEC accessory "stabilizer", and Micro Seiki stabilizer. There must be something to it. |
