Gentlemans: It is each one of us money what the AHEE is using to follow HIS/ITS corrupted analog trend!!!!!!!
Certainly each one of us are the ones that are paying and are paying not for what we want or what we need but what the AHEE decide is " better " for us!!!! VERY FAIR, DON'T YOU THINK?
R. |
That other " play " with our money.
What if we start to be more deep selective when choosing audio items?, this could help if we know what select for. In this way all those compani9es that really does not help to improve the analog experience will disappear faster that we can imagine.
I think that the AHEE needs a deep cleanse for the better for that AHEE can grow up in the right direction.
R. |
Are you ready to pay for?
R. |
Dear Halcro: Where are your facts? Why try to distract from the subject.
Btw, is this your close friend and hero/Dertonarm?:
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?6502-Refund-problem
It is clear yo have nothing on hand. You already exposed your knowledge level on the subject!
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Suteetat: +++++ " I am kind of curious to try it but not sure what to try it with " ++++++
why any one of us could want to try an audio item other than " curiosity " ( that could means many things at the same time. )?
Seems to me that to achieve a better quality performance level in the audio system.
Now, how each one of us could knew or know about that quality performance level?
well some of us because " I like it more " and some of us because we know and are aware that the " new " item improved the system quality performance level because helps to lower system distortions.
The ones in the " I like it more " side are unaware of no other thing that that " I like it more " the other persons knows what they are talking about and why really the system improved its quality performance level. These people knows for sure each one audio link distortion levels in their system audio chain.
Where are you?, this question is important if and only if you really cares to listen and enjoy what in reality is in the recording what is in your LP tracks/grooves. Where IMHO the system main target must be: to be nearer to the recording and if you achieved it then you must be nearer to the live event, no question about/with out doubt.
How could you be nearer to the recording, nearer to what is recorded in your LPs?, plain and simple:
adding and loosing the less from the cartridge signal.
What we losed we can't recovery any more and what we add only can degrade the original cartridge signal.
What can you add?: all kind of distortions you can imagine, just name it and you can be sure you are adding it to the cartridge signal. There is no single audio link in the system audio chain that does not add several kind of distortions. There are not a single perfect audio link, no one and its quality differences is determined mainly by each one distortions levels ( everythinhg the same. ).
We can't do nothing about the recording signal degradations but we have some kind of " control " on the playback of the listening process where we can make a lot of things to lower those distotions to add the less distortions you can.
Money is always an important issue to achieve that target but the main issue is not money but KNOWLEDGE level and your SKILLs. Money is very important but is more important how you use your money to achieve that level of excellence in your system quality.
IMHO the first knowledge level step is to be aware of several of those kind of distortions and second level step to choose the audio items with the lower distortions you are aware. Of course that if you are aware only on the " obvious " distortions this helps you almost nothing, what is important is to be aware of distortions where other " normal " persons are unaware. Here your advantage.
The tonearm is a critical audio link and other than the LP it self and TT platter the nearest companion of any cartridge where is not only important both items be matched because resonance frequency in between but more important that the tonearm could add the lowest distortions you can and that generate not additional ones. IMHO the best tonearm ( everything the same ) is the best damped tonearm that " isolate " the cartridge from tonearm distortions, tonearm feedback and the like.
You ask for the FR66 and you are enjoying it as all the ones posted here. Not only that, here there are expressions as : " is in other Galaxy ", well as grosse those kind of expresion been as grosse is our ignorance level.
All in audio is about information against ignorance of that information. We can't be aware on what we don't know exist. That's why some of us still think that " earth is plane and not a circle " and this is not because we are stupid but because we have not the right information that's we are ignorant of facts.
I owned the FR66 ( that I sold it for very good reasons. ) and still own the FR64. I own and tested these and other several tonearms ( maybe 40+ different ones. ) for years and tested with hunderd of cartridges ( any kind. )/headshells and against other vintage and today tonearms. So IMHO I have information perhaps not 100% one but I can say enough.
Now, is there something wrong with the FR tonearm design?, what do you think?, you are right the design IM HO is a wrong one because does not take in count the cartridge needs it does not take in count added distortions and generated distortions that only degraded the cartridge signal. The FR is a simple one non-damped dynamic balanced design where it generate " all " kind of distortions you can imagine and where it does not damp any single distortion/resonances7vibrations coming from the cartridge/TT, arm board, tonearm it self and from the air.
Obviously you are unaware of the FR kind of distortions but through your experiences you writed about with out knowing it:
++++++ " My impression though is that may be Graham is still a touch faster, bass is very tight but....... FR bass is bigger, richer, more solid which may make it sound a tad slower ....... Mid range and high is significantly better than Graham though. Graham has lots of detail, very clean but always sounded a bit sterile, a Graham has lots of detail, very clean but always sounded a bit sterile, a bit lean for my tastebit lean for my taste .... FR also throw the widest soundstage.... " +++++
" bigger and richer " : read it as higher distortions that are not in the recording where the Graham ( faster and tight: this the way how the bass must be. ) tell you and give you more information more non-degraded information that is in the recording ( that you like it more the FR degraded information means only that: " I like it more " and you like it more because is more unaccurate and less neutral. Remember that the main target is to be nearer to the recording and when you are nearer to the recording you will enjoy for sure better than ever because music is accurate, neutral, dynamic and powerfull with a natural agresiveness that gives the music its unique characteristic: ryhtmum. ))
"
Graham has lots of detail, very clean but always sounded a bit sterile, a bit lean for my taste " +++, this means more accurate and neutral with lower distortions than the FR ones.
" Graham has lots of detail, very clean but always sounded a bit sterile, a bit lean for my taste " +++, this is another characteristic of higher distortions: as more colored are both frequency extremes as higher differences we achieve on soundstage perception.
I can go on on the FR distortions against other tonearms but you are experienced it. Again, that you like it more those colorations does not means is right but means faraway from the recording thank's to the FR wrong/faulty design. The 66 is worst that the 64 due that's longer and produce higher distortions.
Other main focus of distortions in the FR design is that the designer likes not only goes against gravity but again does not took in count the cartridge needs and LP reality and that's why the FR design is a dynamic balanced one where the VTF forced to set by a spring at the tonearm pillar a RESONANT spring that is no damped and those spring resonances are distoritons added to the cartridge signal and not only that: due to the LP imperfetions, non-flat surface, each tiny and single up-wave in the LP surface the VTF is incremented when in a static balanced tonearm design this happen in gentle way.
All those FR faults are only part of several other faults on its design like no-azymuth control and because its vintage age that internal wiring is another degradation cartridge signal focus. I have to say that even the FR bearing frinction is higher that adequate.
Other than today good tonearm designs you can compare the " ridiculous " FR tonearm design against designs that were designed by persons that really knew what they were designed, took for example the Technics EPA100-MK2 or AT/Signet designs or Audiocraft one ( where Graham came. ) or Lustre and many more. These people had a very high KNOWLEGE level and SKILLs that unfortunatelly FR did not and even today they have not.
Suteetat, please remember that we are talking here not what " I like it " but what is right or wrong and IMHO FR is plain wrong. I still own it because I want to know/remember how a tonearm design has not to be.
Of course that ignorants with the wrong information are all supporting FR but if their life time could be enough I'm sure all of them could improve on the subject.
regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Orsonic headshell?. Welcome to the distortion biggest party! where the star is the " fabulous " FR tonearm matched by its " dearest " couple orsonics! . Free entrance. Don't miss it: unique highest distortion party ever! Welcome!
some one even already put a today price for it: 14K. I'm sure is promoting " something " as always.
Btw, one of the gentlemans FR advocates here that started to learn put on sale and sold its orsonic headshells for very good reasons. He has information that all the orsonic advocated has not, that's all about.
As with tonearm we need a " dead silence " headshell too and I mean " dead silent " that " along the tonearm could kills every single kind of resonances/distortions/noises/vibrations coming from everywhere including the tonearm/headshell it self. FR extremely resonant non-damped build material as orsonic are the highest focus of cartridge signal degradation you can find out else where against any other tonearm/headshell combination.
In audio we are and have to make a lot of " compromises/Trade-offs " and in any compromise/trade-offs audio items we choose for advcantages against disadvantages in the item to choose it. FR/orsonic has no single advantage.
Anyway, I was in that " party " and fortunatelly learned all about.
Btw, it is pity and unfortunate that the " audio cancer " be so easy to expand/contaminate audiophiles almost as a " cancer euphoria ".
No one likes to talk about distortions, this word is rejected and a convict promoted by the AHEE and all of us have very low information on distoritons and unaware of them because we are acustom to listening what " we like " against what is right and what is right ( everything the same ) is that that has the lower distortions of everykind from somewhere.
For years I posted that the real main differences in between any audio system quality performance level belongs/reside in how low are overall system distortions in between.
Any one of us can analize each one audio system link to find out the each audio system link distortions and try to lower it. There are always paths to lower distortions and if we don't know how or which distortions we can ask for help.
As lower your each link system distortions as higher the system quality performance level, no single doubt about. As lower system distortions as higher the music enjoyment level. As lower the system distortions as higher the music emotions in your whole body.
IMHO lower/lowest distortions is the real name of the game in audio. Problem is that we learned, were teached and are accustomed to way higher distortions elsewhere the audio system so it is not easy to achieve that system lowest distortions target because the first step is our each one ATTITUDE to change our audio way of living where we could be the main obstacle to do it.
R. |
Dear friends: The improvement system qualityperformance level is in your hands and in no ther hands: it is not in the audio item manufacturers or reviewers or audio dealers but in your own hands.
This ROUND BALL is in your side land and you are the only one that can play with.
Perhaps many of us know exactly how to play with squared balls, because that's what the AHEE teached to us and that's what we learned, and now we need to start to learn how we can play with a normal/vivid ROUND BALL.
One first step to play with this new BALL is to reject all what we learned and to reject all those advises coming from everywhere coming from square ball players.
So stay alert on those sqare ball players, they are easy to identify. Even are posting here and are proud enough to follow promoting that " square ball " when MUSIC only plays with ROUND BALL.
So, your turn.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lewm: As Suteetat posted:
+++++ " However, I have to say that my priority is a bit different from yours " +++++
that's all about.
Yes, my priority is to listen and enjoy MUSIC with the lowest distortions I can achieve because live MUSIC has the lowest distortions we can get. Normally there is only " air " between you and the Music ( near field. ) that is what Suteetat is enjoying every time he plays his piano.
He thinks and I respect him that what he is listening through its system is almost what he experienced live and said that he did not herad piano recordings through the Graham. I'm not a fanatic of Graham and I can't argue almost nothing on his statement because I never been there other that maybe and only maybe the Graham/cartridge combination was not a good one or that that combination performs nearer to the recording. What we like could be not critical but what we heard/hear and why we heard that kind of performance knowing that the music signal passed through a long recording process and through long playback process.
Complex? sure it's a little complex but we can take some help from digital technology using it as a tool to tell us which analog combination is nearer to the recording. You already know that as other audiophiles as Dover or Nandric because they posted and that's why I posted this:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10147&4#10147
yes, digital IMHO is an extraordinary tool to achieve information that will help to improve our analog experience. Only requisite: lates digital DACs technology player, this means: 32/192 or 32/384.
Anyway, all of us are in an audio long learning process every day and is through this learning process that our system improved and will improve with out doubt.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
I forgot. A digital tool has lower distortions ( lot lower. ) and we can use it in repetitive way in real time and always we will hear the same performance quality through that digital tool.
Of course we have to choose good digital recordings that we have on LP too. As in all playback mediums there are awful recording in digital as some LPs too.
R. |
Dear Analog Lovers: The main subject here is not to find out which medium likes you more: NO, the main subject is to use digital as a tool it does not matters that you don't like it.
What to look for when we are comparing same recording in both mediums?:
look for the non obvious " sounds/artefacts/distortions ". All of us are accustomed to enjoy the music through our analog rig that we know perfectly where we are aware of the obvious and not so aware of the non-obvious because we not even know what is that non-obvious " distortions " because we almost never compare it against other kind of source different from analog.
A first step that I can recomemded when using the digital tool is to focus/concentrate in both mediums Bass Management looking for differences, some could be obvious and other not so obvious.
Why start/begin with that frequency range?, because normally the bass management quality performance in digital is not only more accurate and neutral but where the differences are more obvious against that same analog frequency range.
This are very good CDs that can help us and you can find out the LPs at least in Gladiator and The Mission:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10148&4#10148
please listen very well to Memories of a Geshia.
Now, you can use the DVDAs I already tested where you can find out the LPs because all those DVDAs has its LP counterpart. Here are those DVDAs, please " forget/don't read " ( it's not important. ) what I posted other than the digital/analog comparisons:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10142&4#10142
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10109&4#10109
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10228&4#10228
it does not matters if the kind of music you don't like it, remember that we are not comparing here what we like or the medium quality but we are looking for non-obvious differences trying to help to improve with some modifications/changes somewhere in the system our each one analog experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Suteetat: Why so many protractors you own?
Dover advise is really fine. You don't lose nothing trying it and can have some additional fun.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear friends: How could you improve your analog experiences?. IMHO improving the audio system resolution and this means lowering its distortions.
So to improve analog first you have to improve your system resolution: not a new cartridge or a new tonearm or a new TT or all these.
If we take Suteetat system he already has those great Q5 that certainly will tell him about improvements/degradations through any single system link changes and has a very good digital tool too ( that maybe even can improve it to 32/384 status. ) so what left down there, mainly electronics, room and cables and there we have alternatives to improve as go for tweaks through electronics: better fuses or caps or signal resistors or even tubes ( leave tubes for the last. ). All those changes helps to improve his system resolution even that he does not touch or touches the analog rig and IMHO he does not have to do it till the system achieve higher resolution.
Changes through tweaked electronics always are worth to do it and always gives huge rewards. We need the best electronics system quality performance: ¡ if for no other thing because through those electronics the cartridge signal must pass¡¡¡¡, so it's obvious that as better are those system links as better the analog experience. Of course that we can go to other electronic extreme and this is to change the unit but IMHO if we have the possibility to up-grade/tweak what we own this has to be the path to go that even if we want to change in the future we will know which kind of electronics quality performance we could need: certainly that can surpass/beats my upgraded/tweaked ones.
Then, we have room and cables where we have several paths to take to improve that system overall resolution.
In all those up-grade system steps the tool to use is the digital one because ( believe it or not ) has lower distortions and higher accuracy with lower colorations. Lower distortions means more MUSIC information.
When can we start to improve the analog rig?, when we can support/" enjoy " the digital alternative. When this happen then our system is ready first to enjoy the analog rig we own and then start to improve with the certainty that due to the " new " higher resolution system our analog changes/tweaks will be the right ones.
Right now in several of our systems the analog real experience is a lot better that what we are listening and we are satisfied with because we don't know that with the same system with small changes " here and there " we can have a huge improvements over what we enjoy today.
My message is to make a hard work to improve system resolution more than buy new analog toys.
Money is important to improve the system resolution but is more important your knowledge level because you have to decide what to do to achieve that system higher resolution and I can tell you that the answer is not on buy " new analog toys ".
You already have those toys and when you achieve that higher resolution your today analog rig will sounds as " new analog toys ".
You don't believe me?, well that's your prerogative/privilege but if I was you: why not try it. What can you lose ? even you can have a lot of fun!.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thekong: Very fair post.
Measurements?, I love it in the same way I love MUSIC but for different reasons.
I don't know where to start my answers to you but here I go:
Five-six years ago I started with my friend Guillermo another splendid and learning audio item " adventure ", this was and is a self tonearm design ( that today is finished. ) where the amin target is that be a Universal one ( this means ): " that any single cartrridge and I repeat any single cartridge mounted there must shows it at its best like in no other tonearm before ".
How any one could design and build a tonearm that can fulfil that target and to be sure the target was achieved?
forgeret about the design knowledge level/skills to do it and we ( you and me . ) concentrate in: " to be sure the target was achieved ".
Another important question: why any one could want to self design a tonearm with that target other than make money?
Well ( sorry that all these is a long history ), several years ago when we designed the Essential 3160 " second to none " active high gain Phonolinepreamp my inquetiude was to own the Phonolinepreamp that could honored the cartridge signal degrading the less: adding and loosing the less because what were in the market does not fulfil that cartridge signal needs and the marketed products trade-offs were non-aceptable by my priorities..
In those times , like today, I owned/own " hundred of cartridges ( mainly LOMC ones. ) that I was enjoying through different TTs and through several tonearms.
When we finished the Essential 3160 unit we were and still are very satisfied with but the main subject here was that born a new " way " to listen LOMC cartridges not only because the Essential sounds different but because that " different " came/comes from the lowest distortions ever for that kind of product, its accuracy level is even today not even or beat it for no other unit I know ( the owners of that unit can testify about as the ones that heard it ( some of them tube lovers ) ).
This audio item gave me and serve me as an incredible tool to started judging analog playback from a different " stage/scenario " never experienced before ( well our first attepm was battery powered phonolinepream two years before it. ) and to follow refinning my own test/comparison audio item whole process. I begun to understand in better way what was wrong and what was right down there and not because that wrong or right were subjects that were the ones I prefered or dislike it but because were more accurate, neutral with lower colorations: near to the recording and then near to the live event.
In those very first moments I took in count that for improve my analog experiences I did not had to do it buying the latest cartridge or the latest TT but through improving my system: electronics, cables, room, speakers and the like other than my analog rig and that's what I did it and still do.
In the mean time my test/comparison whole process was improving " day by day " and in those improving experiences I took note about distortions ( coming from everywhere and every kind of distortions: IMD, THD, resonances, vibrations, damping, noises, colorations ( subtles ones. ), etc, etc. ) that I was totally unaware existed down there. I learned ( for example. ) to distinguish between a tiny deviation overhang set up against a tiny VTA/SRA set up: how both distortions sounds!!!!
I started to think in different way and improving in different way. Normally I try it to improveall what I'm aware of, those things that like me more those things where I was aware of those " obvious " " things ".
Suddenly I start to heard/listened for the non-obvious " factors/things " the unaware ones. I started to look not for the good things but for the wrong/bad things on quality performance and morte important in the " undisclosed " things. This learning process took me months/years till I have the " hairs in my hand ". Not an easy process when you don't know what to look for but that you have to discover it, here helps me to think " out of the box " and try to forget some " things " that I learnend through the AHEE and that were totally wrong try to forget about myths, example: BD or tubes is the way and only path to take: and something like that.
Step by step I learned the non-obvious factors that helps to improve or to degrade the system quality performance. As higher resolution I was achieving not only everything were more easy to heard to discovery but to to confirm it to confirm your findings ones and again. With out high system resolution you can't do it. Yes, I know that almost all of us think that our system owns a high resolution and accuracy but normally that it is not happening because we are trying to improve and improved the obvious but there is not where belongs not only that high resolution but that higher quality performance.
Now that my system performed in the way I need it was time to follow the learning process but now at the analog rig level and here I took in count that the cartridge signal will be as better as better are its tonearm companion and where the LP is resting/in touch. I took in count way before any one else in this site even mentioned in a diffrent way than about the cartridge/tonearm resonance frequency ( btw, same happened when I started to post of the phonolinepreamp and the RIAA process. ).
Was in that " old " time when the idea to a self design tonearm flowed and I remember that because I owned so many tonearms/cartridges ( including the FR66/64 ) that I was testing in deep to learn more about that cartridge/tonearm relationship we took an action to make measurements on the tonearm behavior on resonances. Things are that at the main University in México we have close friends that accept to make some tests with some tonearms but faster that I'm writing this we took in count that normal measurements through acelerometer and the like were not critical because what we need it was something really complex: we need to measure different " parameters " that could shows us the influence grade in the performance of what we heard with the cartridges/tonearms in action this is during playback and the real problem is that in action are invloved to many factors/parameters additional to that each single cartridge is a different design with different kind of suspension, build material cantilever and shape of cantilever, different stylus shape, different cartridge build material body, different, different,.... and in the tonearm side things were " similar ". So we had to reject those measurements other than the traditional ones that serve almost for nothing.
What gave me the key were all what I learned about those non-obvious system quality performance behavior those non-obvious distortions that when " disappeared " improved the system quality performance.
All that work permit us to have fenomenal tools to voice with a very low error any audio item through my system, I think that my test process has a 95%+ of success talking of voicing.
Not only my friends can attest that but some people in USA already " testing " me about. My process is simple and the best of all is that not only is already tested and full proved but that I know it better than my hands. Example: in no more than half hour listening to an unknow home system I can tell you what is wrong, where, why and how to fix it. I do this through my ears.
My ears are not better than yours even I can think that are average but the difference is that my ears are trained long training time on porpose with very specific targets trained to know what to look for. I can tell you that ( belive me or not. ) with out be conceited that I almost never fails in what I'm hearing against what you heard and more important against what is wrong because I'm aware of it when you are unaware on it.
I repeat, my ears are not better than yours but heavy in deep in porpose trained and still today on that learning long process.
That's what makes the difference not that we could hear different NO all of us hear in similar way but are trained in different way.
Like you I like it the 66/64 and that's why I bought it and I enjoyed for years till I learned and on deep tests again not our finished tonearm design but against other vintage and today tonearm the FRs showed all its faults that you can't heard because you are unaware of it unaware of those distortions not only that all of you take those distortions as FR virtues.
++++ " your conclusion would no doubt be affected by your own hearing / preferences. " ++++
not really, my conclusions are headed because I can distinguish between: accurate and non-accurate, distorted and non-distorted, neutral and colored, in all these cases and several others I'm talking of the non-obvious the unaware performance factors Y learned and still doing.
My training gave me a free subjectivity way of think in audio because what I like it in the past likes me and has foundation on wrong information learned through several years through the AHEE where all of us belongs.
Today I know for sure that as more accurate as better neutrality as lower distortions our each one audio system has as better our system music enjoyment. I remember you and other people that accuracy, neutrality, low distortions is not in any way sinonimous of: lean, cold, analitical and the like far away from there. Music is and posses accuracy, neutrality, low distortions and natural agresiveness and natural colorotaions and all these is IMHO what we must to look for in each audio system.
The kong, is very dificyult to explain and to understand facts that you never experienced, better yet that you experienced and experience it right now but was/are unaware of it.
We need to live it after we learned. Sooner or latter you will understand because you will learn as I'm still doing. There are no secrets and certainly not " golden ears " only developed knowledge and developed skills and tools.
Btw, a condition to improve resolution in any audio system that has passive speaker designs is integrate to that audio system a pair of active subwoofers in true stereo fashion way. No matter which passive speakers we own or design or price or even room size. Remember that I mentioned " Bass Management ", well it is perhaps the more critical factor to improve overall system resolution: with out it you can't learn all you need and will be " short " of that.
Thekong, one thing I'm sure: that when you will have in your hands/system our tonearm design you could understand in more easy way what I posted here.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
|
Dear Suteetat: It is almost imposible that almost any Q5/amp combination do not like it ( I only heard Q5/Boulder ) but we can ask for more than only " likle it ".
Now, you pointed out a main subject:
++++ " Impressive sound but it does not move me emotionally. " ++++
MUSIC has that unique characteristic that's to wake up our deepest emotions/feelings and if an audio system can't do it is because somewhere something is wrong.
The quest of what I'm trying to expose in your thread is to have that " impressive sound that moves us emotinally. I know we can get it: system low distortions and emotions are not against in between and when the system owns both certainly you are on " heaven " for the first time in your audio life, this IMHO is the Quest.
You are right that system with higher distortions like it us more than other with lower distortions. Why could be this?, not easy to say other that we are accustomed to those higher distortions all our audio life and it's not easy to switch to lower distortions. The point is that sometimes a good low distortion system link helps to lower the system distortions but at the same time could naked other system links that with the new low distortion link does not like what we heard.
Lower distortions is not a synonimous of top quality performance because depends on the audio item design, used parts in the design and excecution of that design, so we have to have the knowledge level and skills ( example: self test proccess. ) to know it that low distortion audio item is a " good " one can " transmit " MUSIC.
To achieve a system with lo low distortions and that " transmit " MUSIC is not only to choose " ingredients " the " best " or the high priced ones but is a proccess that take time and that we have to walk step by step and in that " road " we will find obstacles and you can be sure that sometimes we fall and we have to learn how to wake up again. So the proccess is at the same time a learning one and there are not rules for: plug&play but even that's complex is worth to take the adventure. We have to take the adventure with out misconceptions or pre-judgements even think " out of the box " always help and always help to know that not all what we already learned is necessary useful or true in that adventure.
++++ " Mounting it on FR 64s, I think that the contrast between Koetsu and Air Tight is not as obvious. " ++++
could exist different reasons for that and one is that in any higher distotions audio item differences always are less obvious.
I really appreciated you and Thekong your " concern " to know hwat I'm talking about with out any kind of ironic statements from your part or even some kind of gibe/taunt on what I posted. I say this because there are some gentlemans that everytime I touch the distortion subject in any thread they react in that way.
I always think that the best in our life is always ready to come, so the expectations growing up and the future is full of rewards depending what actions we take today.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.- |
Dear Suteetat: Why I discovery the MM/MI alternative, the subwoofers necessity, the removable headshell tonearm designs, the DD alternative, the Digital alternative or that 12" tonearms are worst than 10" ones or the RIAA accuracy importance or the active high gain phono stage alternative against the SUT one or SS alternative against the " only " other tube one or the geometry alternatives we have to set up cartridge/tonearms or that cartrdige/tonearm is a little more important than TT as could be the phonolinepreamp, or, or, ....? ( btw, I have an answer/my answer for each one audio subject name it here. )
THINKING OUT THE BOX WITH OUT LEARNED PREJUDGES AND OPEN MIND TO TEST AND TRY ALMOST NON-ORTHODOX AUDIO PRACTICS.
I can tell you that I was one of the first audiophiles to brought Agon those and other " unique " subjects that as DISTOTIONS almost never were discussed here.
I think that you and me as many other audiophiles/music lovers wants to achieve and experiment the very top/last analog boundaries/frontiers in favor to enrich our MUSIC enjoyment but to get there first step is that mentaly we have to change we have to change our attitude and second step take ACTION on that new adventure to get there.
I'm seriously involved in that adventure for years at that level that even I design/build the audio link I need it if what is in the market can't help me to achieve those analog last frontiers.
I learned that analog has a lot more to shows us and that other than our self the main obstacle is our each one audio system because was builded with way different " needs " : So we have to start to build a new system that can helps to explore those great analog last boundaries that are waiting for waiting for showing each one of us the real analog that only a few can enjoy today.
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1200430667&openflup&10134&4#10134
that's what we are accustomed and if we just follow that AHEE trend we move/walk to no where.
How many years took to each one of us to be " here "? for how many years are we involved not only on music but in audio?: 10-20-40-50 years?. We can't wait that everything can change for the better in two months with system changes and only because Raul say so!!!
We all need time, need to understand and to take the right " road " to find out those analog last frontier.
Have fun.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thekong: I owned that MFA and heard the IO/FM/Boulder. IMHO no one honor in full the analog experience. Yes, you like what you like because that's what you learned but my subject is try to change a little about and see if it's worth, for me was and is full of rewards that " change ".
Why am I so in deep with analog when I know that digital alternative is so good today and growing up very fast?
Other than my 6-7K LPs the main reason is that through my today proccess I explained here I found out that the analog alternative still has land to explore if we improve substantial our system lowering each audio link distortions.
I don't have to buy the latest LOMC cartridges or the latest TT tonearm or electronics ( well it help me that all my audio friends are in the same " trend " that almost all of you and they bought the latest some borrowed cartridges to test it. ), with what I have now is ( for the moment ) enough due to that lower distortion system I achieved.
As I said: I want to explore the last boundary/frontier analog has for shows us and following the analog AHEE trend could be almost imposible to achieve that last boundary/frontier. Life is to short to be only an spectator, if we want to some day be enjoying that analog last frontier we have to be ACTORS and not mere lookerons.
IMHO, is time to stay away of that AHEE TREND tha's the wrong one and not because I say that. Take a look where we are " thank's " to that AHEE corrupted trend: with almost no grow in almost no single audio ling in the audio chain. Look at the other side look how fast growed and is growing the digital alternative when we analog lovers still thinking that the earth is flat and not because we are stupid to don't understand the earth is round but because the AHEE teaching and teached us that the Earth was and is flat!!!
We all are victims of the AHEE and that's why I say corrupted one becuase today they can change ( becausae they know everything I post here and in other threads and more more information that we can't imagine but that can help to start the growing up faster. ) its corrupted trend and they don't do it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thekong: +++++ " some forum members think differently! " ++++
sure they did because was not prepared for it: it naked everything and this fact is not a welcomed one when we can't undestarnd it when we can't understand why.
+++++ " as most of us (at least I) would certainly have our own preferences. " +++++
I think all have the same preference: MUSIC, period. You can prefer different kind of music but other than the kind of music if we know in deep how music sounds then there is no space for preferences: music sounds right or wrong it does not matters of preferences . The problem in audio is that as you almost all of us like to " hide " behind that " preferences/subjectivity " because is our " defense mechanism ". You use it in your other post when posted:
+++++ " If that means I like high distortion, so be it! " +++++
and discussion end it. Like that almost all your arguments and almost other people arguments, we have to take on the subjective hand when we really can't understand or think different from other person.
++++ " depends on our own hearing and preferences. " +++++
not preferences but own hearing because is an additional " voicing " tool. I can add too: " own deep trained hearing ", this is the difference between audiophiles as you and me or the ones that prefered to " keep his pricey items ".
Btw, the latest Essential version is still second to none but not on sale any more. I'm finishing a new design but not for sale either.
+++++ " I am not sure how your method of testing could totally eliminate personal preference and be completely neutral. " +++++
as I said you can't understand it so: how can you have an opinion on something that " I'm not sure how... "?.
Anyway, thak's for your time.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thekong: +++++ " How can we be sure you won't change your mind tomorrow? " +++++
you don't change when you don't learn: learning is a proccess that can gives you a new " vision/status " of things that you thinked you knwe very well. When we have new information true information on that continuously learning proccess usually time to time yo could change for the better: if not why spend time to learn if for no other thing that improve?
I can see that you don't move from that old tube technology even in the worst place to have: phono stage. Whatt did you learn that made that you don't move that you don't improve or grow-up about other that " I like it "?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thekong: I read that you have an Eclipse and if I remember in the past you use S.Frontiers that I can't remember if is SS. For years I used tube electronics and learned, slowly but learned, so I changed as you did it. Time to time I ask to my audio friends ( audiophiles and retailers. ) for a tube unit only to check if I'm losting on something and till today that technology has nothing new to offer especially at phono stage level.
So, I can see any contradiction. As you learn as you can change for the better and this is the main subject: " FOR THE BETTER ", did you?
The kong my advise regarding the DISTOTIONS subject was and is to re-set to re-think the whole audio information we have or at least forget it for a while and then start to build a system from " cero " with no pre-judgements but with a new mind trying to start to learn as if we learned nothing through all these years. Is the only way to really change for the better to really understand what means lower distortions and how that lower distortions system sounds/performs and when this happen you will live the audio experience of YOUR LIFE enjoying MUSIC as never before.
Not an easy proccess but worth to intent it. You have to have a test/comparison whole proccess with very defined LP tracks that we will using always: same tracks and same " grooves " on each test tracks. That proccess must include self tests, yes we have to test it our selfs to know if we can understand and take advantage on that new learning proccess.
Thekong, I already said the same to Suteetat: how many years do you have on audio and how many years do you have in your today audio/music learning proccess and how many years do you have trying to improve your home audio experiences?, almost all your life, so don't wait that what I'm saying could be achieved after a few months: NO way.
I hope that over time you and other persons interested in the subjects I pointed out could experience it listening what I'm hearing at my place because when we have the opportunity to hear words are almost useless. Welcome any time any of you to have some additional/different audio fun.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Nevillekapadia: Certainly R2R always is a good option to make comparisons unfortunatelly we can't find out all the software we could need and that's why I took the digital road.
In the digital alternative like in a R2R does not exist both RIAA eq. proccess, no phono stage, no TT/tonearm/cartridge/vinyl and additional cables, so in these regards has lower distortions that permit to be aware easy on differences not only between tonearm/cartridge combinations but the whole system distortions level.
I prefer the today latest digital alternative ( latest DACs. ) becaus eis more easy more user friendly and has a very high quality performance level and we can find out a lot of similar LPs recordings.
In the other side R2R has its own problems we can attest for it if we compare a D2D recording against the same normal recording, I did this through the Shefield recordings that have the same recording versions in both formats D2D and through R2R: the difference is evident, higher distortions/noise through the R2R version. Other way where we can attest the same is through digital recordings LPs as the old Telarc ones where even that the signal was recorded through R2R what was recorded were 0s and 1s and this is whar is recovered trough the LP cutting proccess with no R2R high noise and distortions. We can hear all those " anomalies " that does not exist in the today latest digital alternative.
IMHO R2R/analog can't compete in the distortions whole subject against the digital alternative.
The R2R master tapes all suffer of time/aged printhrough and we never can be sure that all the recording information was recorded at 100% : always because the R2R it self and the tape system to recording exist information loosed or bad recorded in the other side through the digital alternative the recording proccess see only 0s and 1s!!! and if we take other digital alternatives as could be hard dics and the like we can be even better.
IMHO analog is non-accurate by it self it can't be in other way is part of the technology a very old technology. No, nothing is perfect and certainly digital is not either.
I don't know if you knew that R2R generate odd harmonics and even that " we love it ".
My take is that right infront our nose/ears exist a truly " new " world to improve our LP analog experience and the good news is that we all coul have access to it if we start that distortion adventure through lowering each kind of distortion in each audio link in our audio system: there is no other way or following sticked with that " terrible/desastrous " LP quality level performance we have right now.
I know we can be a lot better because I'm experienced it. Please try to think and try to take actions " out of the box ", this simple fact is the KEY to the New World!!!, all is up to each one of us.
Of course that some of us like the today audio life like to think that Earth is flat and nothing wrong with that because at the end each one of us have the privilige to choose their self MUSIC enjoyment.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Suteetat/Lewm: I think you are " right " on your thoughts and those opinions could not be in other way and the main reason of that IMHO is that: for how many years, maybe 20-30-40, almost all of us heard and today still hear those kind of distortions that we like it is it that we are accustom to it? it does not matters if are " right or wrong ".
It is obvious that if that kind of distortions is the " only " kind of distortions I heard/hear any other distortions generated by a different audio item can sound " sterile " or whatever.
My point/subject is that today we have real alternatives other than the LPs, alternatives where we can enjoy the music too.
In the past the only alternative to really enjoy MUSIC was LP no doubt about but I think that today we are showing a new " audio era " and we are lucky enough for live it:
never before the analog/LPs were at its today quality performance level and never before the DIGITAL was at its today really great quality performance level, along both facts never before our each one audio system was at so top quality performance level!!!!
So, in many ways these are the " golden years ". That some of us are reticent to accept the digital or SS today development to enjoy music does not diminish in any way those facts I mentioned.
Today I can " see " more ofr you with top digital units some of you with the lates DACs and some of you now are listening through SS electronics and even MM/MI cartridges. So things are changing for the better and is up to you to grow up in music's benfit or not.
From my part I'm enjoying all today alternatives. Maybe I have an advantage over some of you: I'm not " married/sticky " with any audio technology, I'm maried with MUSIC and its enjoyment and I always try to find out the " best " technology/alternatives to enjoy it .
What are you doing?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " The horror.........oh the horror " ++++
well, I don't know if you already understand the whole subject or not but I know that other " flat head " persons can't understand because they don't care about other that " I like it ".
I know that you are a wise man and that's why your post is some kind of surprise on what I assumed you are. I hope you are not like other " flat head " persons.
Of course that if you are not looking to get/arrive, listen and enjoy to that very last MUSIC/analog/digital frontier you can follow sticky in your very very old DISTORTIONS. The best of all is that you have a very large " land " to advance, is up to you to do it. Good luck in your trip to MUSIC HEAVEN.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Dover/Suteetat: +++++ " The problem with using protractors based on fixed pivot to stylus and overhang is that any deviation in mounting distance or cartridge/headshell constraints render the protractor useless.... " ++++
and not only that, we have to add here that any change on VTF or VTA/SRA ( if we make those changes or the ones that happen during playback due to the LPs are not flat but full of waves. ) affect the whole cartridge/tonearm geometry set up meaning that distortions values overall the LP surface that were calculated on the choosed cartridge/tonearm geometry alignment has no " value " any more because the starting distortions calculated were on " perfect conditions/thery " in a static way not dynamic as during playback.
So in reality we are almost at random ( during playback ) about those tracking distortions generated on a pivoted tonearm choosed cartridge/tonearm alignment.
+++++ " you cannot adjust it via the headshell as Halcro suggests because you will end up with a different overhang. You must have the mounting distance correct. " +++++
absolutely right. The tonearm mounting distance is the " subject " down there.
Now, any one can " play " with the calculators/comparator tools you linked ( VE. ) to find out which geometry parameter set up like it you more ( lower distortions for example or that the cartridge could " fits " better in the headshell or whatever you imagine. ).
You can change effective length and choose between IEC/DIN/JIS inner/outer groove distance that will give you different set up parameters with different null points too.
IN the FR you could choose " whatever " you like on effective length till you can make overhang adjustement. Why 231.5mm and not 232.00mm ? Dover likes 231.0 and Suteetat a different one.
There are no rules about we can change the input values for the geometry set up calculations. Any change gives us different distortion values at outer/inner grooves and between null points but all these are in static mode in theory that during playback always change.
I like you Dover use a simple 20.00 dollars protractor, like you I think we don't need nothing more: is in practic useless. I think that in the past I used no less than 10 different protractors including the Denessen one. It makes a difference which one I used?, really not and not only because what I posted here but because cartridge/tonearm choosed geometry set up as critical and important as it is is only one factor of several other factros that has main influence in what we heard.
I know for sure for example that mounting a cartridge in a different headshell build material gives me more differences on what I hear that changing from 240.0mm to 241.00mm on tonearm mounting/effective length.
Way before we had therads/posts on that different geometry cartridge/tonearm set up/alignments I was and heard several top home audio systems here in México and USA too, in all of them and with LPs that I know very well I can't heard neither the owners that famous " inner groove distortions " because the choosed geometry alignment. I heard other things and confirm some other things like the importance to make a good overall set up independent on what geometry alignment we choose.
I think that we have to choose the alignment that wroks better in each one system with each one cartridge/tonearm combination.
Now, I think that information always gives us a better way of thinking and as better we can understand the whole cartridge/tonearm alignment as better we can decide what to do in specific, the next white papers on that kind of alignments is IMHO a good point to start for understand the subject but remember that all those equations and the values we achieve trhough the different calculators are the theory when everything is perfect and we know LP is far away to be perfect during playback.
This is something that I posted somewhere in the forum:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the only known " solution " to cartridge/tonearm geometry set up are the Löfgren equations ( 1938 ), all the other " solutions " are clones from Löfgreen ones ( Baerwald ( 1941 ) Stevenson ( 1966 ) and the like. ).
The original Löfgren was name it Löfgren A and is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking error at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. There is a small rise and fall in error between these points.
The second Löfgren solution was named Löfgren B and will gives you the lowest overall tracking error of any alignment method but with slightly higher error at the beginning and end of the record than the A method.
Both solutions are Universal ones and can be use it with any pivoted tonearm with slots in the headshell it does not matters the tonearm geometry design. If the tonearm is J or S shaped or what you " imagine " is not important for the set up.
This two Löfgren solutions/equations calculate ( in any set up ) the next set up parameters: overhang, offset angle, null points, linear offset and mounting distance.
These calculated parameters comes from the equations that have three known and only three parameters: tonearm effective length, most inner groove distance and most outer groove distance, there is no other single parameter need it or taked in count for the overall calculations: so the geometry tonearm design does not matters for this calculations, the only tonearm design factor important is that be a pivoted one.
Of course that you can make changes on this starting calculations parameters, this is that we can change the tonearm effective length for a different calculated set parameters or we can change the most inner groove distance tooo if we like it. Every time we made one of these changes we are changing too the traking error and tracking distortion values for that set up.
As you can see does not exist: that this or that kind of calculations is better for this or that tonearm, you are free to use it as you want: Löfgren A or B, there are no more, as I told you all the other " solutions " are mathematically identical to the Löfgren ones but only with different notation and arrangement.
It is ironic that for many of us Baerwald is more " familiar " name than Löfgren when was LÖfgren the creator of those two and only solutions.
The Baerwald solution is identical to Löfgren A as is the Stevenson B and the A has the difference that has the lowest distortions at inner grooves over the Löfgren solutions.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
if any one of you want to know more deeper information the in this link you can read about, only make click on DOWNLOAD:
www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4854
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Syntax: As always you don't leave to be the marketing manager of that gentleman.
++++++ " (some here know it) and what amazed me totally was the amount of visitors, dealers and Importers who showed a very huge interest in that.... " +++++
I think that you can change a little your statement. When are we interest on something? well when we want to see/know on something new or when we are ignorant on the subject that the item gives a " solution ".
Dealers and importers mainly looks for $$$$$$ and visitors/audiophiles because a " new " item like several that we can see in any Audio Show.
Now, the ones that because that Audio Show buy/bought it they did or do it because a very high ignorance level because they don't undesrtand the whole alignment subject that Dover pointed out where a " Stupid VE " free protractor makes the job a good job an accurate job.
Why are you amazed when you are an audiophile and already knew on that item?, because after all these years are you still ignorant of the whole subject?
I don't see your post relevance other that your high ignorance level or that you confirm you are the marketing manager of that item. You are very good on that marketing job as very good photographer as you are very good car dealer. Good for you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " you cannot adjust it via the headshell as Halcro suggests because you will end up with a different overhang... " +++++
so, all the advise you give to the FR set up is wrong. Why? because you are giving advise with foundation on what you hear on what you are aware and other that recomend the inherent distortions of the tonearm you are given advise on even higher distoritons you are hearing due to your absolutely wrong set up!!! ( as the Dover post pointed out. ) and it's almost sure that you followed and follow the same error/mistake with all cartridge in that tonearm and in other tonearms!
As you said: ¡ HORROR.....HORROR !
Certainly you have a deep misunderstood on tonearm/cartridge geometry alignment. It is not surprise because several people can't understand it.
There is no rocket science there is only Euclid geometry that even you can make equations " manipulation " through Algebra to change parameter values.
Well, the best of all is that now you can make the right set up to follow given advises.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Now I understand your predilection for that Signet high distortion item.
But wait, best for you and best of all is that you will have a lot of fun in the next few years because you have to re-listen any single cartridge you own in any single tonearm you own.
Halcro, any one of us made and make mistakes almost every " audio life day " and is the best way to improve: when we are aware and fix our mistakes.
R. |
Dear Thekong: +++++ " and these curves aimed to minimize tracking distotion in different sections of the LP. " ++++
correct and you can have as many curves as you want depending if you take IEC/DIN/JIS most inner/most outer groove as input to the equations or even your own values. You can " play " about to make calculations make the set up and decide which one works better for you.
+++++ " With the alignment jig that came with the Graham Phantom arm, I can see the difference in overhang of the 2 different alignment curves (forgot which 2) can be as large as nearly 1mm " +++++
that's the difference between Löfgren A and Löfgren B alignment.
+++++ " As such, I am a bit skeptical when some users of ultra accurate alignment jigs claiming they got considerable improvements with these jigs. It seems to me that, even with this ultra accurate alignment, you are simply trading less tracking distortion in a certain section of the LP for higher tracking distortion in other sections! " +++++
right and that is what I understand Dover posted, unfortunatelly always exist trade-offs.
Remember what I posted :
++++ " any change on VTF or VTA/SRA ( if we make those changes or the ones that happen during playback due to the LPs are not flat but full of waves. ) affect the whole cartridge/tonearm geometry set up meaning that distortions values overall the LP surface that were calculated on the choosed cartridge/tonearm geometry alignment has no " value " any more because the starting distortions calculated were on " perfect conditions/theory " in a STATIC way not DYNAMIC as during playback.
So in reality we are almost at random ( during playback ) about those tracking distortions generated on a pivoted tonearm choosed cartridge/tonearm alignment.... " +++++
Btw, Halcro you can manipulate any of the equations parameters only if you made the value changes in the other equations input parameters and the set up was made it with the new calculated parameters. If not everything is wrong, you can'T manipulate the overhang parameter with out the choosed equations new calculation. This is not aritmetic where you can add or rest somewhere and think that all is preserved but the overhang: mistake.
Anyway, I don't care what you are listening because I don't have to live with, as Dover I'm only trying to help.
Reggards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: I can and I did question/questioned you about your opinion but I can't remember that I questioned you or any one else that if it is true that you own/owned some audio item you mentioned about. As a fact I don't remember any single forum member that in the past did it with other member.
I remember that one time you posted that were along other gentleman the designer/manufacturer of your own speakers: I repeat self co-designer. Remember? and remember what happened down that thread ? do you want to talk about or about your co-designer/partner acts AGAIN?
I have nothing to hide but you are questioning my integrity and then I take it as personal injury and don't think that I can accept it by " free ".
R. |
Dear Halcro: My first " high end " tonearm I owned was the 66, in those time my best experiences were with Denon tonearms. I sold it because I can't change directly my cartridges from one tonearm to other. I was really a rockie those times.
MY FR64 that I still own I bought it along a Luxman BD TT that still own too.
The TT-71 was really something I was not looking for but when I saw an auction the JVC tonearm that I was looking I bought it and things were that the tonearm came mounted in a TT-71 and as a " bonus " with the great JVC X-1 cartridge!. The 81-101 were not mines and heard it briefly in my system one borrowed by a friend and the other by an audio dealer.
About the Signet all the history is already in the other thread.
Please don't share the same way of thinking of those " flat head " persons , you are better than that.
In the other side I took this from Dover post:
+++ " you cannot adjust it via the headshell as Halcro suggests because you will end up with a different overhang. You must have the mounting distance correct. " +++++
normally Dover is a trusty gentleman, if the post is a wrong one then my mistake and please delete my posts, sorry for that and good to know that you really understand the whole tonearm/cartridge geometry set up.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: Even that you don't answer yet to the Dover post where I founded my posts there is something important to analize because what you posted:
++++ " If you use the 231.5mm S to P distance for the FR-64s.......you will not be able to interchange headshells onto the FR-66s which is best set at 295mm.
I prefer to set my FR-64s at the FR recommended 230mm S to P to match the 295mm of the FR-66s. " +++++
++++ " other cartridges ready mounted in their own headshells and all of them have been played on the FR-64s as well as the FR-66s.
In fact......with ALL my cartridges......I set them up on one of my FR-66s arms .....and then simply swap them between 4 of my other arms " ++++
So, you just swap in between with out modifications, right?
How can be ? which kind of geometry equations or manipulations you do for you can make that because that's what I need and maybe other persons too. Yes, I'm willing to learn as always.
Your answer is appreciated, please enlight us. Thank's in advance.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: Something is wrong in your whole tonearm/cartridge set ups:
FR choosed Stevenson ( IEC ) alignment for the tonearms mounting specs ( we can choose Löfgren A or B if we want to test in between. ) and that's why the 66 overhang is 12 against the 64 that's 15mm.
Now, following Stevenson and following what you did to change the 230 PtS distance to 233 for " compensate " and can swap cartridges between 66 and 64 is a misunderstood just does not works because if you change to 233 the correct 64 overhang is 14.7mm not the same as the 66 and with a different offset angle/linear offset too and something similar occur with the 505 too.
So that's not only an issue of way higher distortion but a plain misunderstood how to handle how works those equations.
So, please don't delete my posts it is clear that you are hearing " different " things wrong or non-correct " things ", again way higher distortions.
Thank's for your explanation that puts a " light " on your set up that has several " problems ".
If I missed something please let me know.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " It would seem that someone who has actually done this using a quality protractor to evaluate alignment on both tonearms " +++++
IMHO that's is not a " quality protractor " issue but to understand how the whole subject works!!!:
in the link I posted comes everything you have to know about the tonearm/cartridge alignment geometry. Those white papers ( long ones. ) makes a in full explanation in easy words for any one could understand and has all the technical/equations inforamtion too.
The point is that we have to read it carfully, yes it's a long one but if we want to understand about we have to read it.
Through the time I posted that same link because the same subject not less than 10 times and people still don't read it!!!!!
With all respect seems to me that some like you want: " peeled and in the mouth ", this is what we say here in México.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lewm: ++++ " is it a bad idea to use a "good" one? I think not. " ++++
agree. As a fact there are not bad really bad comercial protractors.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: The VE calculator has not the Stevenson alignment that's the one I use to find out the correct overhang/offset angle with that 233mm StoP distance. The VE is forsing/compelling the calculations to achieve 12mm on overhang and that's why you have over 300% higher distortions over Stevenson alignment that's is the one of the three standards with higher overall distortions.
++++ " how do you decide the limit of what distortions are allowable for the rest of us....." +++++
I don't decide nothing I only post my opinion with some facts around.
Sometimes you are angry with me when I said several times that you are hearing and likes high distortions because your cartridge quality performance reviews reflect that you are hearing higher distortions than other persons. That tonearm set up confirm it as many other things and Halcro I never imagine you choosed that higher distortion set up, even that in some ways I had some kind of reason in that distortion overall subject on what you are hearing and I assume you like because is what you are hearing. Tha's all.
What you did is almost as to make a tonearm/cartridge set up at random by " feeling " and with out need of a protractor. I think we use any decent or " stupid " low price ( as Dover said. ) protractor for at least be near of a " perfect " set up in static way. We all know that on playback almost anything tend to change.
Anyway, today I learn something. I hope other gentlemans too.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: First than all you as any one else can read all posts in this forum but if you revise in the MM/MI thread I listed in two-three posts all the SUTs I bought trhough ebay and the one you name it was there.
Btw, you need to test the Denon AU-1000.
Now, what do you want? that I give you prove of what I bought like the last time I did it with other gentleman because he did not believe I own or owned an audio item?
Please, do it a favor and try to find out that Denon instead to try to tell me in this forum that I'm a liar. If you have a problem with me please email me you already have my email but I appreciated don't came to Agon with that: " Should I believe this story? ".
I respect you try to do the same and remember that I " work " with facts and first hand experiences.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: Which part of my post you don't understand:
++++ " The VE calculator has not the Stevenson alignment that's the one I use to find out the correct overhang/offset angle with that 233mm StoP distance. The VE is forsing/compelling the calculations to achieve 12mm on overhang and that's why you have over 300% higher distortions over Stevenson alignment that's is the one of the three standards with higher overall distortions. " +++++
I´m speaking of the the VE calculator you linked.
there you can read very clear:
+++ " The VE is forsing/compelling the calculations to achieve 12mm on overhang " +++++
if you read on that link what VE are doing is to compel a set up changing only overhang with out change the offset angle and that's why distortions goes so high.
Using Stevenson ( IEC ) alignment a 233mm StP distance the Stevenson calculated overhang is 14.734mm ( I don't used the VE Stevenson calculator but you can do it. ) and its overall distortions be the ones for Stevenson alignment/equations.
So what's the problem with?, certainly you have a misunderstood on thw hole tonearm/cartridge geometry alignment.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: +++++ " I was right about the 15mm overhang and you were wrong? " +++++
I don't know what or where you took information that told you that. Could you explain it?
++++ " There are dozens of posts from you extolling the advantages of Lofgren A (Baerwald) over Stevenson, and your understanding of the distortions of each geometry is obviously flawed.
It just reinforces the fact that you can never be trusted or believed " ++++++
that's the problem: or you can't understand or you can't even read ( btw, I reserve my opinion on that: +++ " you can never be trusted... " +++++ because you just can't prove it as I'm proving here and in other threads that your statement is the other way around!. ), never mind here you can read that what you said is not true:
+++++ " 02-28-11: Rauliruegas
Dear Geoch: That general acceptance on Baerwald is IMHO a wrong way to go, nothing I repeat nothing outperform the overall low distortions ina Löfgren B geometry set up: it does not matters what other people could say or already said it..................................
Löfgreen B IEC is very good option and has the best/lower overall distortion. The DIN one gives you a lower inside grooves distortions but with a higher distortions outside the inner grooves: I don't like it, my take is that good tonearm with good cartridges are very good trackers and I prefer lower distortions overall against a tiny lower inside grooves distortions that I'm sure you can't detect because the difference in distoprtion level between IEC and DIN is extremely small.
Anyway, the real subject is IMHO that you can use any geometry equations option it does not matters which tonearm you own.
Nothing impede that you can test Löfgren B or Löfgren A ( that's similar to Baerwald with the same offset angle/overhang. ) or Stevenson set up and decide which set up please you. .... " +++++
when I talk of " overall distortion figure " I'm refering at its average one and between null points.
this is another post:
+++ " The original Löfgren was name it Löfgren A and is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking distortion at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. There is a small rise and fall in distotion between these points.
The second Löfgren solution was named Löfgren B and will gives you the lowest overall tracking distortion of any alignment method but with slightly higher error at the beginning and end of the record than the A method. " +++
Stevenson is the worst of those three standard alignments.
IMHO you need to re-read the white papers I linked because you are understranding almost nothing. It's not me the only person questioned you but Dover too.
Now, prove that you are right and we are wrong. I posted facts but you can't understand it as you can't understand Dover.
Halcro, with all respect you are wrong!
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: Here you can corroborate everything what I posted. This is through the VE calculator:
http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator_pro.php?arm1=Arm+1&l1=ps&a1lv=233&a1=st&oh1v=&oa1v=&arm2=Lofgren+A&l2=ps&a2lv=&a2=la&oh2v=&oa2v=&arm3=Lofgren+B&l3=ps&a3lv=&a3=lb&oh3v=&oa3v=&arm4=Stevenson&l4=ps&a4lv=&a4=st&oh4v=&oa4v=&og=iec1&ogv=&ig=iec&igv=&cal=y&submit=calculate
at the end of the page you can read what I posted in Agon in that 2011 posts but with different words. I hope you can trust on VE!.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Halcro: ++++ " The real point of all this is that Raul selected the Stevenson alignment (which he doesn't use himself)........to prove that my 233mm P to S distance is 0.3mm out?
Instead of having to concur that I have the tonearm set up correctly for interchangeability of headshells (according to Baerwald)........he will grasp at the ridiculous to avoid admitting defeat? " +++++
wrong again, a misunderstood. I don't took Stevenson ( FR took it. ) to prove that you are out for 0.3mm because as you admit you has an overhang of 12mm ( to match the 66. ): you showed in the calculator link you posted!!
++++ " instead of having to concur that I have the tonearm set up correctly for interchangeability of headshells (according to Baerwald). " +++++
wrong again, Baerwald ( IEC/DIN ) does not shows 12mm on overhang with 233 on StP distance. Where do you read it?
Btw, in no one of the posts that gentleman could prove any of his theories, I have the posts.
Now, don't talk prove what you post. Bla, bla, bla,.. means nothing: where are those facts that are the foundation of your posts?
In the other side the discussion is between you and me: why brought here the name of a third or fourth person trying to convince ( your self because you can't convince any one else. ) or prove what you can't do it because your whole subject misunderstood? or only are trying to distract from the main subject: your misunderstood.
Just for your records here a discussion between your third/hero person and other agoner on tonearms:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&255&4#255
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&256&4#256
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&276&4#276
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&277&4#277
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&278&4#278
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1245780214&openflup&280&4#280
three times in a row in the same thread your hero was defeated.
Have you enough or will come back for more?
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Thuchan: Way before you bought the 8000 I posted my opinions on those SAEC tonearms along the 506 I own ( you can see the 8000 picture in my system. ) and that was way before no one here in this forum speaks about SAEC tonearms. I used those SAEC tonearms for years ( they came after I sold the 66. ).
SAEC had a very high quality builded designs and a beauty of tonearms in the hands but through all those years and comparing against other vintage tonearms as the MS 282 or the Audiocraft or Satin I learned about its performance " faults ". The double knife bearing is more resonant than other pivot bearing types as gymbal or jewel and puts additional distortions/feedback that you can hear, other " problem " in the 8000 is that way resonant ceramic headshell and of course its long effective mass.
Its very dificult that you can be aware of significant differences between the SAEC tonearms and other top tonearms if your system has not the resolution need it to be aware of it.
Now, that's part of my opinion that where I acumulate several experiences with different cartridges over several years not over 3 or 4 years and against several tonearms in the same set up.
Like you when I discovered the SAEC ones I was really impressed, you can't be in other way. Yes, the 8000 is one of your " new " toys when for me is a very old toy. Sooner or latter, as me, that toy will be out of your system for good reasons: when you learned about and be less impressed as I one time was.
If you want to talk about SUTs you can start a thread or go to the MM/MI thread. Very fast, I bought two WE transformers along two Denon, two Entré, one Audiocraft and one Sony SUTs. All that in one month to search again about the SUTs performance an its influence on signal degradation against non-SUT system. I modified all, you can read in the MM/MI thread.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Dear Lewm: I owned the DV-505 and its a design that I respect a lot becaus e is unique, good for Dynavector.
You are right almost all japanese tonearms came with set up specs based on Stevenson.
When I try to mount my first cartridge on it I don't put to much attention to that fact and mounted according with the protractor at hand and I have trouble because the offset angle then I was aware of Stevenson and that's how I use it for some time but I changed to Löfgren B twisting the cartridge as you said ( I don't use it the Dynavector headshell and I can't remember wich ones I used because was years ago. ) and with the XV-1 mounted in that way I achieve better results that with the Stevenson alignment and that's the way I used. Maybe I could be wrong but that passed so many years that's dificult to be sure about. Yes, that tonearm conforms as no other tonearm with Stevenson.
In all audio alternatives exist trade-offs and perhaps those trade-offs " sounds " better for me. I don't mounted MM/MI cartridges down there but only LOMC. Unfortunatelly I don't have any more to test it again.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
Btw, interesting: could you link your VE post to my email?. You know I'm willing to learn always.
Thank you.
R. |
Dear Lewm: Agree with you and I could add that first than all how can we could be absolutely sure that the hole ( arm board ) where any tonearm is mounted had the accuracy need it because we are measuring the distance: Pivot to spindle and that pivot position is critical?.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Regards and enjoy the music,
R. |
