Yes.....centre of Tower is Pivot point.
I do have the Dyna XV-1s which is currently mounted to one of my FR-66s arms..........but I also have 38 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 (which I can do very accurately using Dertonarm's UNI-Protractor).....and then simply swap them between 4 of my other arms (the Copperhead has no headshell and the SAEC WE-8000 S/T has its off-set angle built into the headshell).
My point being Suteetat......that I have had no mounting problem with over 40 cartridges in either FR arms......and I even had an Orsonic headshell which caused no problems?
Perhaps the Airtight is a 1 in 50 cartridge?........but something is certainly untoward in your experience? |
Halcro, thanks for your help. It is kind of strange, Air Tight sounds fine with 230mm P2S being close to the furthest point away on the headshell with Baerwald. I think that if my XV-1s can be mounted with plenty of wiggle room with both 230/231.5 mm as you have with no problem then I just assume it is one of Air Tight quirks. If I have similar problem with XV-1s then I guess I do have a problem (keep my fingers crossed!) |
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 Raul, don't worry, no one was interested in a product made in Mexico (a small joke was created but all were happy when it was corrected). I am not ignorant but I am afraid that I forgot more than you will ever learn. Well, I know that you will never get it, but I am not in marketing, nor in photography nor in dealing with something :-)
Too bad for you
Regards and enjoy the music
S. |
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. |
Dover,
Enlighten me as to where you see me "suggesting" anything other than mounting the FR-64s at 230mm as recommended by Fidelity Research which should give the recommended overhang using the geometry selected by them.
Your preferred mounting distance of 231 will either give a different overhang or different geometry?
Your choice.....no problems. |
Since we are talking about alignments, I would appreciate to get some answers from knowledgeable members here.
As I understand, there are 3 popular alignment curves, i.e. Baerwald, Löfgren, and Stevenson, and these curves aimed to minimize tracking error in different sections of the LP.
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. I would assume this difference is way larger than the accuracy built into even the cheapest alignment protractors.
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 error in a certain section of the LP for higher tracking error in other sections! So, unless you are judging the performance by only a certain section on a certain LP, a considerable performance improvement over the entire LP seems unlikely!
I am not questioning the experience of other members, but just want to know if there is any technical reason behind that! Or am I missing something? |
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. |
Halcro - And yes......I have listened to the differences between the 230mm distance and the 231.5mm.........
However I don't think this will solve the problems you have described Suteetat?
I have plenty of 'play' distance for all headshells I have tried on both my FR arms to align for ALL the known geometries. Halcro I may have misread your post - this implied to me that you were suggesting that the pivot to stylus distance could be accommodated via the headshell, which it obviously cant. I assume you meant to say ALL known geometries for a mounting distance of 230mm? Thanks. |
Raul,
Get off the Sangria and show me where I said anything like what you are talking about?
Is this figment of your imagination the same as the one about you owning and selling an FR-66s and owning a Signet TK-7LCa and having a Victor TT-81 and TT-101 beside your TT-71 in your system?
If I want your help......I'll ask for it. |
Speaking about repetition. This is 33 1/2 time we dwell about tonearm geometry. The 1/2 one was the thread with only two contributions so it would be not correct to count
this one as a whole thread. I play my records only around the O points with the least possible distortion. Even Raul with his distortions obsession never got this idea. However his 'learning curve' still make some progress... Depending from the part of the record which one want to hear and enjoy in the most pure way one should of course use the geometry intended for this part.
I am however not sure if all 45 preadjusted headshells in Australia can be used in both tonearms (66 and 64) this way. Anyway it is impossible to use one half one way and
the other the other way. So the dilemma in this case is in which to use 23 headshells. |
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. |
I have to say that back when Halcro asked about setting up his cartridges in separate headshells so that each cartridge could be used with each of his tonearms (at the time, I thought he wanted flexibility among several tonearms, not just 64S and 66S), I was dubious that this could be done without at least some minor re-alignment each time. (And we know there is no such thing as "minor" realignment; each time one must do it, it is a pain in the arse.) Later, when Halcro claimed he had conquered the problem, and since he was pleased with the results, I assumed that perhaps I had been wrong and /or that Halcro may have found some compromise that is "good enough". Now that the issue appears to have been put before us again, I am interested.
Right now, the question seems to be that if you mount the 64S at 230mm and the 66S at 295mm (factory recommended, as I understand it), then a headshell bearing a cartridge that is correctly aligned for use on the 64S will also give perfect alignment when that headshell/cartridge is transferred to the 66S. It would seem that someone who has actually done this using a quality protractor to evaluate alignment on both tonearms could tell us the answer. Also, Euclid could tell us, if he knew the other relevant parameters. |
Sorry guys,
I had forgotten that the time Lew refers to when I did indeed seek to interchange headshells between my two FR-66s arms, the FR-64s arm and the Micro Seiki MA-505s which was nearly two years ago I think?.....
The MA-505s was no problem because it's overhang is the same as the FR-66s.....however the FR-64s has an overhang of 12mm as opposed to the 15mm for the others.
So to correct for that......I reset my P to S to 233mm for the 64s.
And yes......I know that the Av and Max distortion levels go up as a result.
I think now that I will select about 5 or 6 cartridges and specifically align them for the FR-64s set at 231.5mm.
I've had to do that already for the SAEC WE-8000/ST so we shall see......?
I also miscalculated my cartridge storage facilities.......
The total is 38......not 48 :-) |
Tempus fugit.
Thanks, Henry, for the clarification. |
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 Raul, CALCULATORUsing the Vinyl Engine Calculator where you plug in the parameters (Eff Length, Off-set angle and Original Overhang) and then choose the new Overhang desired.........it calculates the NEW Pivot to Spindle distance and gives you all the new Null Points and consequent geometry as well as the new distortion figures. As the stated Overhang for the FR-64s arm is 15mm......I don't know from whence your 14.7mm derives? Perhaps you can communicate with Vinyl Engine and let me know the outcome so that I can clarify my understanding? As for the MA-505s which has the same Overhang as the FR-66s.....and as far as I am aware.....there is no Off-set Angle built into the straight headshells (this is part of the S or P shaped tonearm itself).......can you please explain exactly how to use the Calculator as I must surely be missing something? 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. As the "distortions you are listening to are infinitely greater than the zero distortions of a linear tracking arm.......how do you decide the limit of what distortions are allowable for the rest of us.....and at which point they are audible? |
Raul, North of your border, a spoiled female would say, "Peel me a grape". There's a great jazz tune with that title, written by Dave Frischberg.
If one is going to use a protractor, is it a bad idea to use a "good" one? I think not. I did not use the word "expensive"; I used "good". |
Halcro - I have to agree with Raul, your numbers dont add up. 05-15-13: Halcro
The MA-505s was no problem because it's overhang is the same as the FR-66s.....however the FR-64s has an overhang of 12mm as opposed to the 15mm for the others.
So to correct for that......I reset my P to S to 233mm for the 64s.
And yes......I know that the Av and Max distortion levels go up as a result. The FR66 should be 12mm overhang not 15. The FR64 should be 15, not 12. If you are running 12mm overhang on your FR64 then you should be moving the arm closer to the spindle to reduce distortion, not further away. |
Suteetat,
In re-setting the FR-64s at a P to S distance of 231.5mm.......I discovered one cartridge/headshell combination which locates the screws at the furthest point of the headshell.
The Signet TK-7SU in the Yamamoto HS-1As wood shell is the only combination exhibiting this structure.
At this furthest point......it has perfect 'Dertonarm' geometry :-) |
By the way, good luck with getting the overhang accuracy to 0.3mm, so as to distinguish between 14.7mm and 15mm, anyone. A little cantilever flexing will obliterate any such precision. |
Halcro, thanks for your information. I mounted XV-1s yesterday and there was a few more mms wiggle room than Air Tight using Baerwald geometry on Feickert protractor.
So look like it was Air Tight and not something wrong with my arm or protractor as far as I could tell.
Feickert protractor is rather difficult to see especially if I have a light source on the side or the rear to help me see better. Light source is very useful for Air Tight and Koetsu especially but not as needful for Dynavector or Lyra. Surprisingly, I get a lot of glare of the black surface. Clearaudio silver finished is easier to see but Mint mirror surface is by far the best.
I saw Uni-tractor on acoustical system website. Is that the same protractor that Dertoarm made awhile back? There is an economical version call SMARTrack. Looks interesting! |
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 Raul,
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?
Oh.......and do I read it correctly?.....I was right about the 15mm overhang and you were wrong?
Nothing new about that.......... |
Dover,
Please see the VE Calculator Chart in my Post above.
Raul is not disputing the figure. His 0.3mm difference is due to his assumption of Stevensen geometry.
You've got it arse about :-) |
Suteetat,
Yes....the UNI-Protractor is made and sold by Dertonarm who also has made a range of adjustable headshells which are receiving positive reviews....and has also just launched a new tonearm which debuted in the HighEnd Show at Munich.
Dertonarm (Daniel) knows more about the FR range of tonearms than anyone else I know.....unlike a Mexican peppercorn who has never owned an FR-66s....just look at his Systems Page where every tonearm he has owned is listed....incl the FR-64s?
This Mexican wannabe also was designing a new tonearm but where is it?
There are some people in Audio who have the knowledge and ability to design and produce.
Then there are the Pretenders who are full of hot air.
When the chips are down.....all they can do is....blow. |
What is in a name? Well the name is about the reference
and when we want to find something we need a name. The
tonearm made by 'tonearm' (aka'Der Tonarm' in German) is
called the Axiom. The Arche headshell which we discussed
in the context of the 'iron horse versus locomotive' is included
or build in the Axiom. I got the Arche for free,
Thuchan got also the Arche for free but also the Axiom (?).
Some guys are more lucky than other.
Regards, |
Dear Nandric,
Who told you i got my Arche headshells for free? I paid hard cash! Definitely. Also for the Axiom.
I was always waiting for the Mexican "Wunder Tonarm" but received nothing else than replies on distortion problems. Maybe HE was surrounded by distortions getting no other idea than that topic.
Anyway in the end it is more or less a question of reliability which got proofed now.
I was always wondering that Raul could invest in a very, very expensive Western Electric SUT he never mentioned before I came up with it. Suddenly
He wrote a negative comment about it and told the world he sold that crap.
Should I believe this story? .... pfft |
Not that Raul needs to be defended; he is good at it himself, but he and his compatriot have designed and manufactured a superb solid state phono stage with many great features. Therefore, he is not fairly subject to your criticism of him as a "wannabe". He pisses me off too, on the odd occasion, but let's be fair. We distortion-lovers have got to stick together.
As to Vinyl Engine and what's there: the only Stevenson protractor I have been able to find is the one available for free on VE. If you print it, make sure that the ratio of the image to the print is 1:1. I then laminated mine between two pieces of mylar, punched a hole for the spindle, and it "works a treat".
Also, in that vein, my personal experience is that I get the best sound when I align the cartridge using the geometry for which the tonearm was intended. For example, the DV505 was designed for Stevenson or something very near to it. When I align using Baerwald, etc, the sound is never as good as when I use Stevenson. The reason for this may be that in order to use something other than Stevenson, the cartridge must be askew in the headshell, twisted with respect to the long axis of the headshell. In the DV, this means that the arc of the cantilever is not in line with the arc of the vertical pivot. This may be the cause of the distortions I hear. (Yes, I can hear distortions; I am no Philistine.) |
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 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. |
Lew, Of course some people prefer Stevenson alignment for various reasons.....however the vast majority of audiophiles are using Lofgren A(Baerwald) because of the lower overall distortions. Stevenson - a variation on Löfgren geometry optimized for low distortion at the inner groove at the expense of increased distortion elsewhere. The Vinyl Engine Calculator is designed for this most popular (and lower distortion producing) geometry although they do have calculators for the others if you so desire? 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? It demonstrates the almost psychotic paranoia which governs his behaviour. If you remember about 2 or 3 years ago.....there was an entire Thread here on Audiogon which discussed all the Pros and Cons of the various geometries.....and even personalised geometries which one can adapt for certain requirements? Dertonearm provided sufficient evidence in long and protracted postings.....which demonstrated the sheer lack of credibility and understanding that Raul has about this whole subject. I hope that Thread is still in the Archives but I doubt it as Raul became more and more belligerent and personal....which is his Modus Operandi whenever cornered? |
|
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. |
As Audiogon has deleted the infamous Thread about Tonearm Geometry where Raul's ignorance was finally revealed to all......here is another Thread where Dertonarm exposes the Mexican again and again..... AGONBLACK KNIGHT |
Dear Raul,
in the last 12 months you have stressed your ambition showing our community what you think about the FR designs, the SAEC WE 8000 and some other benchmark designs in phono-business. I was very surprised that you proclaim that all these designs are of mediocre sound capability and all the guys out there using these designs keep their houses full of distortion while yours is clean...
I don't mind that you have different assessments on these products and I tolerate everyone using and enjoying his "own best gear". But don't you realize that I cannot take these remarks you are giving in the last months as serious anymore??
Regarding the WE 618B you need telling me when you have discovered this item on ebay for what price? Maybe you can also tell me in which tonearm/table combination you were using the Western Electric SUT. I then might be able to assess your remarks that the WE is of low quality...
BTW among serious audiophiles in some European countries your assessment of the WE 618B (as of the FR-66s and the SAEC WE 8000) did raise the same questions I have.
If you are feeling I am questioning your integrity this is your assessment. I am just putting questions on some phono units and like to exchange other opinions. I am not putting it personal. Hope you understand this.
enjoy the music |
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: 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 Thuchan, 'Who told you I got my Arche,( etc.) for free?'
Well, dear Thuchan, I don't use question marks as often as some Aussie but 'it' was there at the end of my hypothetical statement. As a (guest) member of the 'German group' I assumed 'they probable share many things together' so IF Thuchan got the Axiom for free why not me? To put it otherwise: nobody told me this. I invented the possibility in my own interest. However I got the Arche honestly for free probable because my 'hard cach' is not as 'hard' as yours .
Regards, |
Dear Nandric,
ah good for you. You seem to be a rare exception :-)
Nevertheless my Arche headshells are working properly...
So which is your next tonearm project? Axiom for free or the Mexican stick?
Maybe you will have a beard until Raul will make an outing on his arm. Nevertheless we already collected so many words from him and as I just now realize he doesn't like to be defeated by anyone, so he must do something... or? |
Raul, When you have calmed down sufficiently, I would like to know what you think about my experience that suggests best sound is achieved when the cartridge is aligned according to the geometry for which the tonearm was designed. That means, for the vintage Japanese tonearms like my Dynavector DV505 (and in theory like the FR tonearms), the best sounding geometry is Stevenson. This is my personal observation with only the one tonearm (DV505) and two different cartridges. And it is only my opinion based on listening, only. I am NOT saying that Stevenson gives the lowest overall mathematically predicted "distortion". I am only reporting my experience, and I attributed the finding to the fact that with the DV505 one has to twist the cartridge in the headshell, in order to use anything but Stevenson. There is reason to believe that this could introduce a new source of distortion that over-rides tonearm geometry. I wrote about this on VE. |
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. |
