The SAT arm tube itself is a similar mass as a conventional arm tube from aluminium. Basically carbon fibre is lighter than aluminium. SAT have used this attribute by using a larger and thicker cf arm tube that significantly reduces unwanted resonances compared to an aluminium arm tube of the same mass. This from their mouth. However still doesn't tell us the effective mass. |
@dover 24 hours in with the Primary Control FCL, it fair to say it has a leg up on the Tosca in terms of liquidity, textures and grain lessness. it’s very sexy. might be a touch more micro-dynamic and life like. the Tosca is similarly transparent and balanced. at these levels we are talking about small differences, but also at these levels small differences equal big differences in musical terms. the Tosca really has no weaknesses; but the FCL adds more realism and expressiveness. the FCL is doing things that no other arm can do. it might not be the counting angels on heads of pins champ, but maybe it’s the sexyness champ. the FCL and Tosca are two different levels of refinement; as one might hope for with the FCL at twice the price. |
Dear @mikelavigne : "" the FCL is doing things that no other arm can do. ""
That's a serious statement, so I would like to ask: like what things?
Thank's in advance.
R. |
@mikelavigne : " but the FCL adds more realism and expressiveness. " Are those things what you posted here or something else?
R. |
Mijostyn, you are consistent in your preference for low inertia tonearms, but we’ve mentioned before that some of the “best” cartridges are low in compliance and work best with higher inertia tonearms. So in a world where we are matching cartridges with tonearms, isn’t it a bit specious to suggest that low inertia is a quality you want in any and all tonearms, regardless? and anyway, I would agree with some others who have already pointed out that mass at or around the pivot has much less effect on inertia than mass either in the counterweight or at the cartridge/headshell end of the tonearm. I am sure you know that. So I am not sure why you keep insisting that the bearing of the SAT tonearm is per se evidence of high inertia. |
@mijostyn is all over the place on effective mass and low compliance cartridges. Here's what he said about the Kuzma Safir ( 60g effective mass )
I can't see the SAT getting anywhere near 60g effective mass of the Safir. He;s also had a turnaround on low compliance cartridges, After several posts insisting low compliance cartridges are no good, he is now buying a low compliance Mysoniclab.
|
It just shows how much @dover knows about cartridges. The Japanese measure compliance differently than Americans and Europeans. They measure compliance at 100 Hz. We measure it at 10 Hz. You can effectively double Japanese compliance specs to compare them to Western compliance specs. Koetsus are low compliance cartridges. The MSL is a medium compliance cartridges while it is on the stiffer side of medium compliance. The Voice is 22um/mN. The MSL is effectively 20 um/mN at 10 Hz. Both use styluses with very large contact patches. The Voice tracks a 0.3 gm lighter. The Anna Diamond is another Low compliance cartridge but it also uses a stylus with the largest contact patch, over twice that of an elliptical cartridge. My arm will handle any cartridge as it has mounting plates of various masses. My overriding concern is record wear. The amount of resistance a stylus gives to the groove is a function of VTF, compliance and contact patch area. I do believe Soundsmith has a table of contact patch areas for the various styluses. I understand how you got the impression of my preferences as they were previously stated in very basic form but you use that information in a malignant fashion. Perhaps you have a personality disorder and I should be understanding? As for the Safir, I was not aware of it's effective mass and assumed it was in the ballpark with the 4 Points. "Assumptions are the mother of all f-ck ups." |
@lewm , Inertia and mass are two different but related issues. Low compliance cartridges need tonearms with high effective masses not high inertias. You can increase the effective mass of any arm just by adding mass to the head shell within the limits the counterbalance. This will also increase the arm's inertia. Mr Gomez's philosophy is that stiffness is the most crucial design characteristic of a tonearm and it certainly is important. The component parts of the SAT arm arm consequently thicker and heavier than perhaps they have to be. The price of stiffness is higher effective mass and inertia. He counters using very low mass, high quality materials. If you discount the quality of the materials and manufacture, his designs are rather mundane. I guess I am attracted to alternative thinking like you see in Kuzma, Reed and Schroder arms. I would not buy a SAT arm even if I had unlimited funds. I would get Schroder LTs on a Dohmann Helix. My favorite cartridges run in the medium compliance range maybe with the exception of the Anna Diamond although I lean towards the Verisimo as my favorite Ortofon. The Windfeld Ti is Ortofon's best value in a high performance cartridge. |
Inertia and “effective mass” are interrelated terms (not “mass” alone). I get that the cartridges you like are not especially low in compliance, but that’s beside my point. which is that mass at the pivot does not much affect effective mass. And anyway some cartridges thrive in high inertia tonearms (Denon, Koetsu, Miyajima, etc). I’d bet the SAT is medium effective mass. |
Dear friends and @mijostyn : The OP thread is aBOUT THE sat TONEArm but mike brougth here the FCL unipivot tonearm design and posted " serious " statements about his experiences wioth that tonearm like: " the FCL is doing things that no other arm can do " that with out explanation in true has no sense and till today he does not gives us that explanation.
Anyway, when talking of tonearm designs some of you already know that some of us as @mijostyn and me just do not like unipivot designs and for very good reasons. I owned and still own unipivots ( but I don't use it any more. ) as the Naim Aro ( not bad at all. ), Grace ones I think Stax and the like.
The FCL designer says that with his field copil bearing desing all is solved and he says:
""" We always were fascinated by the simplicity and purity of the unipivot bearing design. The classic unipivot tonearm can sound quite good but has some serious drawbacks. First of all, we never could get used to the handling of the wobbling arm wand. This makes everyday use very unpleasant. A classic unipivot tonearm has also an unfavorable ratio of tonearm balance and bearing point. The center of gravity of the tonearm is much deeper than the bearing point and that leads to a high moment of inertia. Another, often OVERLOOKED POINT IS THE FACT,THAT ALL THE ENERGY FROM THE TONEARM IS DERIVED AT THIS TINY POINT ( bearing. ) INTO THE TONEARM BASE. THE ENERGY THAT A CARTRIDGE TRANSFER INTO THE ARM WAND when playing an LP IS ENORMOUS and THE ENERGY TRANSFER AT THE BEARING POINT IS VERY CRITICAL. "
This last disadvante on unipivots is , as he said, CRITICAL and we can't avoid it because Law's Newton are what are and that ENERGY appears again in the arm wand as feedback in more critical way than in non-unipivot tonearm designs. That huge energy develops high distortions type that the cartridge pick up ones and again. Every kind of energy/resonance, vibrations, distortions pass through that single point and return through its. Very bad.
The FCL designer says: " and sonically performance unmatched by any other uni-pivot tonearm design. " Obviously that the designer took care not to post " unmatched by any other tonearm " but only unipivots.
Mike likes it a lot the FCL when compared with the Tosca but he in some ways was accustomed to unipivots when for years he owned the Durand ones. In the other side the Tosca and the FCL are not only totally different designs but his FCL is 12" long and we all read here ( in objective terms not subjective . ) why shortest tonearms is the way to go . I have to mention too that been an unipivot FC or not the 12" has a higher torsional microscopic movements than any 9"-10" tonearm and his sample is made of wood. Other characteristic could be that the internal FCL wiring and headshell cartridge connectors be different in the Tosca than in the FCL, only these different characteristics along the 12" long sure that makes differences and in objective way I can't see why those differences could be for the better.
We all know that not all what " shines " is gold and I respect the mike opinion but I like to go alittle deeper in my observations that ceratinly can be true or not .
Anyway, that's my opinion with out listen the FCL and as @mijostyn with the SAT not only I don't need a new tonearm but I certainly do not buy even if the money is no object.
R.
|
@rauliruegas @mijostyn out of curiosity what do you consider great arms say in the 5 - 10k range? Kuzma 4Point? 4POINT9? |
To me there is so many variables to make a great tonearm. As you all say there is external vibrations finding it's way up to the tonearm, and there is bearing chatter in the tonearm and probably other unwanted resonances and at the end of the wand/rod there are we mounting firmly/rigid a pickup/cartridge.. so it can pickup all of those problems that the tonearm is serving it. Then we want to solve the problems with constructing the wand/rod so it will dampen/isolate and eat up resonances and vibrations. With a lot of engineering and the sofisticated data modeling and printout in fancy rainbow colors. Impressing and with a impressive price tag then it is good stuff and nobody can say that it is a "gizmo". A cartridge is approximately 7g to 10g. Mass for a stylus and cantilever, typically the best cartridges have about 0.5 mg or less.
So the cartridge body has 14 to 20 times or more mass than the stylus + cantilever have. Then the stylus is moving back and forth in the grove and register all the "wiggles"/information on the grove walls that are so tiny (micron). If you look at the stylus while playing a LP you will not be able to see those super tiny wiggles with your eyes. So we understand that a low mass stylus and cantilever in comparison to the cartridge that not even we are able to see that it is moving it is even not movements (micron) side to side it is 45°upwards.
Then the stylus and cantilever is working against VTF that is coming from above and the inertia of the mass of cartridge (+tonearm effective mass) that is far more in grams than the VTF that is the smaller of them and still is enough. When we realize that only the mass of the cartridge is more than enough for the lateral forces and the VTF is there for the vertical force. So bear with me now and think outside of the box and the common solutions, we want the cartridge to be "free floating in the air" but it needs to be attached also in the same time. The tonearm is just holding the cartridge so the stylus has all the right angels, VTF and so on. While doing that we get all the other down sides that mentioned above. What if we isolate the issues that comes from the tonearm while keeping the stylus setup that the tonearm provide.
There is where the funk houdini is coming into the picture when it isolate the bad things that comes with using a tonearm, and the cartridge itself on the other side of the houdini. As seen in a short clip in Michael Fremer video at 13:50. We see that Arthur is trying to explain and show what his different products including houdini is trying to solve in practice. More or less the same issues that other conventional tonearms also trying to do with their wand/rod. It seams to be a hard and expensive way to solve the issues that the tonearm is giving the cartridge. (But please don't tell the customer that we don't need to fasten/ground firmly the cartridge to the tonearm and transmitt all the issues from the tonearm as they were one homogen piece. Then we get out of business. If they knew that.) But it is a total different approach for solving the issues. Funk firm Arthur Khoubesserian It is great to have a guy like Arthur that are thinking outside of the box and coming out with new and many different solutions for old problems and issues we have with traditional solutions.
|
https://parttimeaudiophile.com/2020/09/27/glanz-mh-124s-premium-tonearm-review/ or stretch to a used Durand Tosca. that would be the smart play. |
!2" arms are like a bad joke. They fail on any number of levels. The FCL arm is another bad joke. How many of you have played with wooden dowels? Hint, they are very easy to bend, even resin loaded. A tonearm should have no sound of it's own. Anything added is distortion, euphonic or not. @rsf507 , There are many great arms selling for reasonable prices including the 4 Point 9, the Reed 2G, the Schroder CB (which I own), the SME V and the Tri Planar. My all time favorite arm is the Schroder LT. It costs $12,000. In other words there is no excuse for spending more than $12,000 on an arm. The only expensive arm that gets my attention is the Reed 5T, but the Schroder LT does exactly the samething in a less complicated more elegant fashion.
|
@lewm, yes, I am because that particular design is a horrible application for wood. It is too long, thin and is the same diameter all along the shaft. Wood's major advantage is that it is intrinsically well dampened. In the case of the Schroder and Reed arms the wood is resin impregnated, the wooden section is relatively short and the shaft is tapered. All this makes the arm much stiffer. The FCL has other serious issues also. |
Dear @mijostyn : Yes, 12" could be for " sex " not for tonearms. I was really satisfied with all of my over 6-8 12" tonearms including the bs of FR66, SAEC’s and the like till I learned.
M.Gomez was very clear about stiffness and rigidity as a main primary target of any tonearm designer . As you said and I know that you don’t need to listen to it the FCL goes against not only the main tonearms design targets but as you said has other issues. I understand why gentlemans like the unipivots and it’s mainly because its aliveness characteristic that it’s not other thing that higher distortions/colorations. Fine with me but thank you:no any more.
@rsf507 the tonearms posted by mijostyn are all good alternatives for you. Now, exist a TT/tonearm very good alternative and that’s is the Rega RP10 that comes with the new RP2000 tonearm that as no one tonearms is a perfect one but a challenge for any other tonearm and I don’t know if Rega has on sale as a stand alone item. As everything in audio analog always exist trade-offs in all audio items but this Rega is a winner and for that price TT/tonearm combination I could say is the century bargain.
Btw, that Glanz review comes for a reviewer where his reference is the FR66, go figure but additional to that is a long tonearm 12" and I can say expensive for.
ere reviews of the Rega that I think are interestings for almost all of us:
https://www.tonepublications.com/review/rega-rp10-turntable/
Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R
|
@rauliruegas , I always forget about the RB2000. It is a lot of arm for the money and yes, you can buy it individually. Another great arm for the money is the Audimods Series 6. |
@mijostyn : I know that it's a reviewer opinion from M.Fremer that is totally biased to SAT analog items but even that in his review of the SAT 75+K DD turntable and with same carrtridges he said in his review:
" The XD1 shares some sonic characteristics with Rega's revolutionary RP10 turntable: ultrafast, clean transients throughout the audible frequency range; tight, fast bass; revealing midrange transparency; and overall sonic stability and focus. All these characteristics result, apparently, from careful attention paid to structural rigidity and the removal or prevention of unwanted vibrational energy. ""
Those words are " precious " for the RP10 and seriously could puts in the TTs big league when the Rega price is a " laughable " lower than 6K.
Just imagine if its price after those MF words been seated at 50K ! !
I have to say that I have an eye on it and maybe you need to think about as an " spare " unit.
R.
|
@rauliruegas , Darn Raul, I just got a new turntable and you are already selling me another one. As a spare I want to get a Dohmann Helix:-) |
tonight i’m bringing out some of my big classical guns to really test the mettle of the FCL. and i am blown away. https://elusivedisc.com/grieg-peer-gynt-numbered-limited-edition-180g-45rpm-2lp/ this thing is so fast, crazy unimaginably fast. and it does not break a sweat even a little. for the last 90 minutes i’ve sampled some formidable pressings i had solid aural memories of, and those memories have been laid to waste. a caution......since i cannot switch inputs i’ve not tried my other arms and cartridges without unplugging phono cables, so no A/B’s for now. therefore; i reserve the right to walk this back later when i get around to trying my other choices. |
Mike, it is simply a unipvot bearing. The field coil is used for stabilisation - stop the wobble. The advantage of the field coil over a magnetic field is that the field coil uses a constant current source, From their site -
It's designed to take advantage of the unipivot, which has low bearing stiction, but address the inherent instability of an undamped unipivot. If I recall correctly Martin Colloms tested and reported that the Naim Aro had the lowest bearing stiction of any arm he had measured. Other methods of stabilisation include having a centre of gravity below the pivot ( not ideal on warped records ),fluid damping ( examples Mayware/Moerch/Kuzma ) and magnetic fields.
|
i've owned a few unipivots; many years ago (late 90's, into 2001) i owned a couple of Graham arms; the 1.5 and the 1.5tc. they were a bit wobbly. never owned a Phantom or Graham after that. |
Aside from the fact that the strength of the magnetic field and its orientation with respect to the unipivot would or could make a big difference, why is the FCL superior to the best iteration of the Graham Phantom tonearm(s), which use permanent magnets to stabilize the bearing? I bring this up only for discussion; I have no preformed opinion, because I’ve used neither tonearm. |
let’s just say that a passive magnet has performance potential; but a sufficiently engineered powered magnetic field has an apparently much higher effect on performance. i’m not claiming any particular effect of the field coil. but i am saying that this arm performs beyond any i’ve heard. and then try to connect the dots as to why. |
Mike, I do not doubt your testimony on iota. I am just thinking out loud about the two kinds of magnet and why would an electromagnet outperform a permanent magnet in this application. And of course, there can be any number of other reasons (such as field strength and field orientation for two examples or elements of construction totally unrelated to magnetism) why the FCL might outperform the Phantom (for one example of unipivot that uses permanent magnets). Because in the end the "field coil" is here used as a magnet, so far as I can tell from the outside looking in. |
Dear @mikelavigne : "" what do i mean by fast? i’m hearing considerably more information, ""
First the signal information is what each cartridge it self can pick up and depends that the alignment set up between tonearm/cartridge be accurated and that the resonance frequency be inside de ideal frequency range. You/we can’t get more information from the LP recorded grooves what we can get is a different kind of presentation of all those recorded information.
It’s not easy to translate in objective terms our subjective appreciations. You said " fast " but the word could be not the rigth one because what the stylus tip movements pick-up and translate in an electrical signal pass directly to the the tonearm wire does not matters in which tonearm the cartridge is mounted that path does not changes and in a 12" the signal can’t be faster than in a 9"-10.5" tonearm that have shorter wires. So, what really happens ( to me ) is the FCL presentation is different and certainly with a signature/colorations ( developed distortions ) that are what you are perceiving. Many of those colorations comes from the kind and levels the tonearm hnadled the developed distortions and especially with signal transients information. It’s a true departure for what you was accustom to with your other tonearms?, I could say not a real departure but something different that at this moment like you more that what you listened with your other tonearms.
Remember that I posted that unipivots " looks " as has or puts " aliveness " to what we listen through it vs non-unipivots tonearm designs? that kind of aliveness is part of unipivots and maybe is what you are translating as " fast " but not more information.
Certainly I can be wrong with all those but today it's my take about your susbjective explanation.
Btw, I own the original Grieg London recording.
R.
|
Dear @chris_g : " I’m referring to anyone that started listening to analog after the year 2000. There are true users, and then there are hipsters!!! " The audio world is a complex one and you have in this analog forum gentlemans that listen digital,LP,R2R and even casette and I can tell you that 22 years are a lott of years to learn what to do to improve your MUSIC/audio enjoyment no matters the media. Hipsters exist only in your mind/imagination.
R. |
no, not more distortion. yes; a step forward from my other arms. which are very fine. it’s more like the detail i get from 1/2" 15 ips tape. more life like and greater realism. |
Primary Control also produce a version of the FCL arm with permanent magnets - the Gravity - at a lower price point. With regard to the Phantom - I chose the Naim Aro over it many years ago for several reasons - The Phantom unipivot bearing is upside down - negatively affecting energy transfer. The Aro used only mechanical damping - weight distribution and importantly the self centering sapphire cup and radiused tip actually provide several db of mechanical damping - see Martin Colloms review. The Phantom arm-tube had lossy material inside the arm tube - in my experience with tuning my ET2 arm-tube this does more damage than good - smearing the signal. I have actually heard a couple of Phantoms in a top flight system with a variety of cartridges - they have a fat over exaggerated upper bass that I find detracts form the music. Funnily enough the Aro is very stable for a unipivot - on eccentric records there is no visible roll. And before Mr R runs another diatribe - the Aro is one of many arms I own. No arm is perfect.
|
Dear @mikelavigne : As I said is what you like it. " no, not more distortion ", well that you or me don’t know for sure ( the FCL is not a perfect arm but with several critical issues that develops distortions. At the end is an unipivot design and all kind of developed distortions pass trhough the pivot trhough one single " point " with no real opportunity to dissipates it and the developed feedback pass trough that single " point " when in a gimball those distortions pass trhough a bearing with more than one point ( in the EPA 100 are 25 ruby balls. ) that helps to dissipates it and feedback too. That 12" arm wand is not at least tapered so higher distortions down there too.) ), what we know is that in audio almost all is about DISTORTIONS different kind and different levels. Everithing in the system puts its self " colorations " that depending of our MUSIC/sound targets makes that we like it more " this cartridge than the other one " or this TT vs a different one " and the like. I already said twice: an unipivot characteristic is its aliveness that in reality is higher distortion, you can’t do nothing about. At each single link in any audio system are developed distortions no matters what and the best we can do it’s to put at minimum its effects on what we listen or to put where those " colorations " been " better " for our ears/brain. You can name those several kinds of distortions as you want it but at the end its name is DISTORTION and believe me your room/system is not free of that, no one is. Anyway, it’s really good that you not only are satisfied with but you are enjoying the MUSIC as never before, fine ! !
R. |
I have been through a variety of Branded Tonearms over the years and swapped out arms as and when one was discovered that was being perceived to be able to perform without contributing to the sonic and being more transparent. In a nutshell and as a very layman's description when the Tonearm was appearing to have got out of the way of having a influence on the presentation, a decision would be made as to whether this was the most desirable trait and the one to aspire to. This ended up with a SME IV being in use for many years and selected over the V, as I was not able to detect a significant difference between the two on the day I was able to be demonstrated both in use, in the same set up and room. At a later date the Audiomods Series V Micrometer was added to the options for a Tonearm to use on the home system. The above two Tonearms are aligned in similarities in how they present a musical performance. It is a very tough call, but I have kept the Audiomods close at hand and is the most frequent occasionally used Tonearm from a Brand. I have an understanding of the impression a Tonearm has made on the above contributors and how a certain model has stood out and the words to describe the impression being made are not to easy to attain. My understanding is resulting from a Tonearm I use today as my go to Tonearm. It has undergone a complete rethink and design of all the mechanical interfaces, and has been machined to enable the use of parts that are modern and much more fit for the purpose of the selected roles. I have heard this Tonearm originally as an early concept design, in another system being compared to a range of TT's and Tonearms. There was enough detected to trigger my interest. I also heard the Tonearm go through a evolving design, to the point it has become a item that is offered to be produced for an individual. At this stage I have heard it compared to the Audiomods arm in another system and the outcome was my acquiring the redesigned Tonearm. In the home system, this Tonearm has as good as shelved the Audiomods and the SME IV is permanently on the Sub's Bench. There is not a comparison in the transparency perceived between the arms, the Branded arms are coloured and able to produce quite noticeable distortion, which is detected as a rather flat uninspiring presentation, the performance is not free to develop, it is constrained. The alternative to this is a presentation where there there is a shaping to a performance, there is a real sense of a unconstrained presentation, there is also a undeniable resolution created, where the replay is present with a form, there is a new to myself dimension added to shaping an instrument, a vocal or note, the perception being created is very different to a typical separation of a vocalist or instrumentation. I don't know how much it will cost for myself to achieve a presentation that comes close to this from a Branded Tonearm, but I don't feel the need to look for a variant of this any longer, there is great satisfaction in the place I am at. This is all available without the option to use the alternative internal wiring I have been instrumental in encouraging trials with. I know through the demonstrations received the new internal wire has been a very good choice and compliments the precision of the materials and mechanics that are selected for this arm. I am looking on occasion to find a shortcoming in the Tonearms performance, this will be carried out as a very subjective assessment, using many years of experiences of differing equipment to draw on. If I take care with the preparation for such times and follow the disciplines I have developed for the replay of Vinyl in my listening environment, I find it very hard to find a detractor or an element of unwanted influence from the Tonearms usage. |
This comment is complete nonsense and here is why - A unipivot has a higher contact force due to the point load and mechanically is actually more rigid through that point load than gimbal bearings. With traditional bearings such as the Technics you have multiple balls in the ball race, each rattling around, and loose. If the bearings in the Technics are not loose the arm won't work. In terms of energy transfer - when you have 2 materials joined and send energy through that joint some energy passes through and some gets reflected back. In the case of your Technics example the roller bearings provide a multiple paths for energy flow and multiple reflections back into the arm tube. Properly designed the unipvot is more likely to have far superior control of energy flow through the pivot than a gimbal arm. And please don't confuse the unipvot wobble with energy transfer - these are two different issues. The statement quoted above shows a complete lack of understanding of basic engineering engineering principles. |
This is hilarious - the funniest comment I've seen this year. Of course most cartridges have a cantilever that is by definition a unipivot. Perhaps the author should stick to digital where everything is only a little bit out all of the time.
|
Dear @dover : " I’m not talking of " control of energy ..." but about how that " superior control in unipivot vs gimball " is sensed by the cartridge cantilever with its negative effects vs gimball.
The FCL designer posted and I pasted here:
""" The classic unipivot tonearm can sound quite good but has some serious drawbacks. First of all, we never could get used to the handling of the wobbling ........ Another, often OVERLOOKED POINT IS THE FACT,THAT ALL THE ENERGY FROM THE TONEARM IS DERIVED AT THIS TINY POINT ( bearing. ) INTO THE TONEARM BASE. THE ENERGY THAT A CARTRIDGE TRANSFER INTO THE ARM WAND when playing an LP IS ENORMOUS and THE ENERGY TRANSFER AT THE BEARING POINT IS VERY CRITICAL. "
So the feedback goes to the cantilever with that same energy along other developed " movements " that develops higher kind of distortions. You don’t like Technics but other than the AT 1100 has the lower friction bearing levels that any non-unipivot tonearm and not even a bat can hear that " rattling " you are talking about .
In the other side your stupidity levels gone higher when posted:
" most cartridges have a cantilever is by definition unipivot "
for me your statement is not an hilarious one but the stupidity of the century when you are comparing it against the arm unipivot. Think a little of that stupid comparison Certainly makes sense to you and as usually and as @mijostyn posted talking of one of your post s you act with some audiophiles as he and specially me where always try to hit in any way but unfortunatelly you never have success and you never will.
R.
|
Wow @dover you really pissed @rauliruegas off! You can not compare a cantilever to a unipivot. Let me see if I can explain this. A gimbal tonearm has two degrees of freedom, vertical and horizontal. Consequently it has two resonance frequencies vertical and horizontal. Proper management of the tonearm's effective mass versus the compliance of the cartridge to get these resonance points at a frequency that does not effect either the sound or the function of the arm. A unipivot arm has a third degree of motion, torsional and consequently a third resonance frequency which will always be higher but of lower magnitude. None the less it will always f--k up the bass. Unipivot arm designers have gone to great lengths to control this. Graham uses opposing magnets and Basis uses a secondary bearing. These designs raise the torsional resonance above the audio range. Properly adjusted bearings are slightly preloaded. They do not rattle unless it is a crappy arm or someone has played with the bearing adjustment. The lowest possible friction is less important than tight control of the cartridge so that the arm can control all the cartridges energy and pass it on to a higher mass were it is dissipated, namely the turntable. This is the reason to have a massive tonearm board solidly mounted to a heavy chassis. Today the best arm/ cartridge/ turntable combinations are extremely quiet. It is very difficult to hear any "needle talk." In short, the basic unipivot arm is a cheap, easy way to build a junk tonearm. Certain individuals which I shall not name even tried to sell their cheap junky unipivot arm without antiskating trying to convince everybody that it sounded better without it. The majority of us almost died laughing. The fact that many people seem to think they sound great is just a matter of inexperience. If you do not know what great sounds like you can not know what less than great sounds like. Many of us have never heard a truly great system. (I include the room in my definition of system) I had not heard one until about 15 years into my audiophile career and that was a real ear opener. Knowing what is possible gives one direction. |
So I know nothing about tonearm design BUT I can say I agree with @mijostyn that the room plays a huge amount of good sound. I've been at homes that have over 500k of gear that sounded horrible, not b/c of the equipment but it was the room
|
@rsf507 isn't that something! And, it is not an uncommon problem. Many give little thought to the room and frequently put the system in a situation were all it is good for is background music. I have a friend with Magico S7s and they sound glorious but, the system is not imaging. I am pretty sure it is a room problem. Next time I get over we are going to take some measurements and play around with acoustic tiles. I am certain we can fix it. |
I never said I disliked the Technics. but I would not use one with a low compliance cartridge. However if you had ever listened to the Technics EPC100's where the "fake" ruby bearings have been replaced by silicon nitride bearings, and properly adjusted, then you would know precisely what I am talking about. |
@dover I am potentially sharing in a experience like yourself on a different Tonearm. Tonearms from a Large Brand, especially one produced from a vintage era are produced to work within a budget and this in itself will impact on the machining requirements and materials that are selected to used at the mechanical interfaces. Role the clock forward and give the Tonearm a introduction to modern design materials that can be used to supersede the original used materials, with identifying modifications that can be applied that will enable the exchange materials to function at their optimum. The interfaces that are in use on the original design are when compared to a modern design concept the the Tonearm, speedily able to identify the earlier design is impeded by the use of materials produced used from the era of production. I am using a Tonearm from a Vintage Period that has undergone modifications to enable materials produced in Japan with a modern design approach to be used to supersede the original parts used at a mechanical interface. I am also able to visit and be demonstrated a modern produced Tonearm based around the design of the modified Vintage design model I am using. Each Tonearm are extremely impressive and are able to make any of my recollections of other Tonearms either owned/used or demonstrated over time seem to not have the capabilities on offer from these Tonearms ( A Personal Subjective Evaluation of Course ) Note: The methods used on the Vintage Tonearm are not merely a swap out of a part, each Interface has been carefully considered and addressed, where the part selected has been considered and any requirements to enable it to function as a optimised part has been produced. The attention to detail has included the removable SME Headshell Connection, that has been reproduced and has been A/B demonstrated, where the new design has shown to be a notable improvement. There are a host of minor changes that have a much improved effect on the function of a interface and materials are incorporated that have a improved management of transferred energies. From my knowledge, there is not much more to be produced from the engineer working with the Tonearm redesign on the mechanical interfaces. Internal Wiring is now the route being investigated to see where there is opportunities to exploit the values on offer from the work already produced. The requirements within the Tonearm to ensure the routing of wire has been thoroughly interrogated and the effect of the wire within the Tonearm, has now been shown to have a Zero Impact on the Bias. With the knowledge attained there are limited wires identified that are to be able to maintain the present produced function, it is a case of trying out the options as they are becoming available. The present status is, the ideal wire is discovered for use, as a result of deselecting other suitable wire types. The good outcome for myself is that I am now using a Tonearm that makes an extremely good impression, especially to the point I choose to no longer use respected Branded Tonearm Models on a regular basis any longer. The more interesting outcome for the present time, is that the preferred Tonearm is now in a position where it can be offered up as a Donor, to receive the additional measures produced, that through being invited as a attendee to receive demonstrations of the work undertaken, are able to show very noticeable changes for the better. That is not too bad a place to be for a Tonearm that in its present condition, is one that has ended my search for a Tonearm that offers a very satisfying performance. Revisiting the OP, I would like to think that a Tonearm that costs +50K has had its design team live and breathe the options to be considered / used to get it to the levels of performance the price suggests it should offer. It does seem strange that the predecessor at $30K is unashamedly referred to as having a bearing that is inferior, this is deduced from the producers referencing that the Successor Models are offered with a improved stiffer bearing. Is the product a performer that stands out over the masses and one to aspire to, or is it a Talk the Talk item with a modern approach to selection of the used materials with a only above average performance, offered at a very high price. Where the only justification for the asking price is from what is to be discovered in the sales spiel. Again as said previously, I don't intend to or feel it is necessary to allocate this type of money to a Tonearm, I am not even sure my curiosity would have it put it on a shortlist of demonstrations to be party to at a commercial event if it were present. |
Dear @dover : first those Technics tonearms are not EPC but EPA 100 and 100MK2 and I owned both. I mounted several cartridges on it and I can't really remember if I mounted really a low compliance cartridge. I think the lower compliance model I own is the 103 and it's not really a so low compliance and no I never mounted in the EPA's.
R. |
I own many classic/vntage arms as well as modern, some modified. The main issue with classic arms such as the FR64S/SME3012R most of the Micro Seiki arms and SAEC arms, and others of that era that are now popular are the non offset bearings. Nobody raises this issue. As you are no doubt aware, with non offset vertical bearings, when you change VTA the azimuth changes. For those that are not aware of this issue, place the palm of your left hand over your right at an angle ( offset angle of cartridge ). Lift you right elbow up and down - you will notice that your left hand ( the cartridge ) rotates - lift your elbow up and it rotates anticlockwise, lower your right elbow and the left hand ( cartridge ) rotates clockwise. Most modern arms now use offset vertical bearings so that when you alter VTA azimuth remains constant. On my FR64S for example, when dialling in VTA the soundstage moves all over the place and the azimuth has to be rechecked each time. This is a royal pain in the a**. As far as the SAT goes, I've heard enough to know that it is an exceptional arm, whether you agree with the design choices or not. The value proposition is very simply - do you have the disposable income, and if so, does it do what you want - it's an individual choice. Why knock folk who choose to buy it - I say good luck to them, hope it works. For me the best arm is simply what can I afford that gives the best performance for my preferred cartridge choice in the context of my total system. The most neglected issue that most ignore when it comes to discussion of arms and cartridges, is that all arms are not perfect, all cartridges are not perfect, and arm/cartridge combination ( the combination of 2 imperfect variables ) is arguably more critical than the individual choice of arm or cartridge. I see so often folk spending $2-5k on cartridges for arms that either don't match or are not up to a standard that will exact anything close to the full potential of the chosen cartidge, In my experience poor arm/cartridge matching results in musical dissatisfaction every time - and costs more in the long run to fix.
|
@dover I am not owning a broad selection of Tonearms, but I have had approx' 8 Branded Tonearms used throughout a almost 30 year period and have 6 Branded Models still owned and available to use as well as the modified model. The bulk of the Tonearms are all with design and materials from another era, and then there is the model with the redesign and modern materials selected for usage. As I own a original Spec Model of the Tonearm that is modified, I am well aware of how far it has developed as a modified model. I have also been able to have it compared to the other models that are owned, that are seen as recommendations at other threads where inquiries are being met with advice. I feel the way I have gone about attaining my end game Tonearm design has a uniqueness and air of bespoke, attached to it. The Tonearm is certainly not going to be available to a large number of owners, even thought the annual orders for having one produced are usually fully booked. Hence, why the designer has been very supportive in assisting with the design for the model that is built from scratch and is proving to be a very attractive model, this direction for the design will be a legacy for the original design. The upbeat side of this method used to attain a Tonearm carrying the qualities that are very attractive, is that it has been a very fair cost to get on board, a Sale of a few Tonearms will cover the costs if break even was required. I have not got any beef with the models of Tonearm on offer like the Sat offering, where I am a little skeptical is how it has sky rocketed in the retail price over a reasonably short period of time. There is no doubt that there are individual that are with the monies available to enable them to express an interest in the device. The concern is whether the pricing is as seen, because of the individuals who are willing to spend this type of money on a Tonearm, or if the Tonearm is of such a design that the production cost creates a base model that demands this type of price. Bearing in mind the SAT models have found their way to speedily increase in retail value over a short period of time. From my external and limited investigations, there seems to be a small selection of Brands that are creating a niche market, where they are not expecting too many sales, but are meeting with customers or customers representatives who are only looking to have an exclusivity associated with their purchases, and are willing to purchase at a price that naturally manifests the air of exclusivity.
|
