daveyf, Sorry. I did think your +1 was tinged with sarcasm. At the time, you and Raul were engaged in a back and forth that I wanted no part of. Anyway, my bad.
I'm kind of surprised, not to say "shocked; shocked I tell you", that apparently most of this group seem to agree with John Ellison, that minimizing resistance is more important than minimizing the number of connectors, especially in a phono circuit. The latter goal is a gospel to me. Is this just because JE is such an authority? Or is it because most of us use tonearms with interchangeable headshells and don't want to be shaken in our beliefs and practices? I searched for headshells that have soldered leads built-in so as to eliminate at least one set of connectors in the headshell pathway; I found only one product, made by Yamaha. I bought one in Tokyo. |
Moonglum, I am not sure whether I am being chastised or not, so I won’t respond to your comment that has to do with John Ellison and the fact that I happen to disagree with his conclusion, which is after all an opinion.
I’m not sure what you mean by “tie-wrap “. I have thought about running a single wire from the cartridge to phono stage that would travel outside the tonearm wand to the pivot point and then from there to the phono stage without ever running through our inside the tonearm itself. This could be a way of achieving a single connection between cartridge and phono stage without drastically re-wiring a tonearm that has interchangeable headshells. You could say that might be the best of both worlds, if you love headshells.
|
Raul, Your response to my question about the point of your long post of 10/12 at 4:55 PM again leaves me at least a bit puzzled and upset. My question was genuine. I was not taking sides with "daveyf". Little did I know that daveyf would subsequently post a "+1", to indicate his agreement with me, and I think he was implying sarcasm, which I did not intend. In other words, I meant absolutely no insult to you at any time. I was honestly wondering what you wanted to say on 10/12 at 4:55 PM. Moreover, I try to make it a point never to insult anyone here. Argue, yes. Insult, no. So, if you think davey is insulting you, that's between you and him. I am not involved in insults. I consider your opinions very seriously, because I know you spend a lot of time doing the work needed to have a worthwhile opinion, whether I agree or not with the substance. |
Raul, Granted everything you just wrote above, and with all due respect, what is your point? |
Moonglum, You wrote: "BTW...your Triplanar has a connector at each end of the phono cable. All you have done is reduced the number of connectors not eliminated them."
Without a doubt, what you say is true. Would you expect me to solder the tonearm wires direct to the cartridge, at one end, and direct to the hot and ground inputs on the phono stage? The issue at hand is whether reducing the number of connectors to the bare minimum, using presumably very thin wires all the way from cartridge pins to phono stage where the same wires are terminated with male RCAs or XLRs, vs using a removable headshell, which entails the introduction of physical connectors at the headshell times 2 (headshell wires connect to the rear of the headshell and headshell makes additional physical contacts with the mating piece on the arm wand), at the base of the tonearm via DIN or RCA or whatever, and then on to the phono stage, using RCA or XLR there.
John Ellison pointed out on VA that by allowing for the extra connectors introduced by the headshell, one can actually reduce the total resistance seen by the phono signal, compared to using 33ga wires all the way from cartridge to phono inputs. He seemed also to believe that the lower the resistance, the better or less distorted would be the SQ. My own experience tells me that eliminating as many connectors as possible always sounds better, notwithstanding the slight penalty for added R. You could say this is my opinion based on my years in this hobby. It is important to note that in terms of pure resistance, we are talking about a difference of less than 0.5 ohms, using John's calculation, which I don't doubt, albeit I found a slightly lower number than he did for the 4 feet of 33ga straight wire option (~0.8 ohms vs ~1.0 ohms). You can read the relevant posts from me and Halcro, above. I also pointed out that there is no imperative about using 33ga wire from one end to the other in the minimal connector scenario. One could get away with 28ga wire, for example, and this would reduce the gap in resistance between the two approaches, if resistance is a bugaboo. (John assumed one foot of 33ga wire [disregarding the two added physical connections in series with the signal in his scenario], followed by 3 feet of 26ga wire. He compared the total R for that to the total R for 4 feet of 33ga wire.)
I have also pointed out that many phono stage gain devices are wired with discrete resistors in series with their inputs, to prevent oscillation. The values of such resistors are typically about 100 ohms or more. This totally swamps the difference in total R between the two wiring options, so I cannot imagine why resistances in that order of magnitude would make much difference. But if I am entitled to my opinion, the other guys are also entitled to theirs.
You seem to be asking me to say how I arrived at my own opinion. I guess this is due to an accumulation of several experiences. One such was in connection with my Triplanar. When I bought it (from a reviewer), it came with the external in-line termination box that offered female RCA outputs. After listening to it for several months or even a year, I then had it re-wired by Herb Papier, the inventor of the Triplanar, with about 4 feet of 33ga Cardas wire going from cartridge to male XLRs that plug directly into my balanced phono stage. The original wire was also Cardas 33ga, so there would be no SQ difference per se attributed to changing the wire. Using a Koetsu Urushi, it was and is my subjective impression that the tonearm sounds better using the direct connection. These days, I own several tonearms, some that use the straight shot wiring and some with removable headshells. I generally find that for LOMC cartridges, I prefer the tonearms with straight connection vs the tonearms with removable headshells. For higher output cartridges, I agree with what I think Halcro said; I hear no difference. |
Never said anything about a 3012R. Never owned any SME tonearm. |
Henry, John is a mechanical engineer. I don’t think he has a degree related to electronics. Yes, he knows more about tonearm geometry than I or anyone else on VA or here. Period. If we must get into a pissing contest about who knows more about what, I will only say that as a real life biological scientist, I did also study physics, chemistry, and math, and I have built amplifiers and preamplifiers from scratch, based on my own self-taught skills. In any case, the subject at hand requires only algebra using Ohm's Law and the formula for the reactance of a capacitance.
I guess it's fair to criticize my post for not noting that John did incorporate an estimate for the resistance of "a connector". (I stopped reading his post mid-way through it. Mea culpa for that.) My calculation for the resistance across 4 feet of 33ga wire, based on internet acquired data for resistivity, is 0.824 ohms, a bit less than your quote from John, and this is assuming copper wire. It would be a tiny bit less for silver. One question that arises is, why must we use 33ga, if we are fretting about resistance? One could use a heavier gauge, if that is such a concern. And finally, do you (and John) really think you are hearing the difference between ~1 ohm (for a straight 4-foot shot with 33ga wire, using either his or my slightly lower estimate) and around 0.5 ohms (for his estimate of the sum of various wires plus connectors)? As far as my "mumbo jumbo" is concerned, no specific calculation for the effects of connector inductance and capacitance is possible, because we have to know specifically what products are being used. Anyway, one man's mumbo jumbo is another man's good reason to do something. You haven't even offered mumbo jumbo; you've just declared a position and dared anyone else to knock you off it. In the end, I have no desire to change your mind. You do what you like, and I’ll do what I like. For me, the best connector is no connector, whenever practical. And by the way, you’ve ignored the bit about grid- and gate-stop resistors.
Like everyone else, I too enjoy the convenience and cartridge-matching possibilities afforded by interchangeable headshells, but I approach the problem with an acknowledgement that I am accepting some small compromises, when I choose that method. I do choose it with alacrity for MM/MI cartridges, as noted. |
Henry, Sorry, but in my opinion, you and John Ellison are wrong. "Wrong" in the sense that your and his analysis is very incomplete. "Signal loss" due to R is not the only thing to consider when comparing transmission along a single piece of wire from A to B to transmission of the same signal across several different pieces of wire, interrupted by several physical connectors along the way from A to B.
First, your analysis, and John’s, assumes that resistance across a connector is zero. Of course, it is not zero; it is some number of Ohms that would and should be added to your and his calculation of total resistance. This will be different for every connector along the way and also dependent upon its cleanliness, the use of contact enhancers, etc. (And by the way, do you also mean to say that all connectors sound the same and that all connectors are tonally neutral?)
Second, at each physical connection in the interconnected second circuit there is introduced a capacitance and an inductance that would be expected to affect the signal in (admittedly) tiny ways. And finally, I would predict that the pure effect of wire R must not be so audible as perhaps are connectors per se. To support my contention, I would point out that many audio circuits deliberately introduce much larger values of R in series with the signal, in the form of physical resistors to prevent oscillation. In tube circuits, this is called a "grid-stop"resistor. Tubes with very high transconductance typically require a grid-stop resistance of at least 100 ohms. In many phono stages, there is a 100-ohm or higher value grid-stop resistor right after the input connection to the first gain device (tube or transistor). Transistors have much higher transconductance than tubes, typically, and also require "gate-stoppers". The value of these Rs, which are also in series with the signal, is many thousands of times the resistance of the wire. You might argue that if we could get away with removing these latter physical resistors, we might hear the difference, but we cannot do that, and their value in Ohms completely swamps R of the wires and any connectors as well.
As to audibility, I have come to the conclusion for my own purposes that high quality headshells with cleaned and contact-enhanced connectors have no detectable negative effect as compared to a straight shot from cartridge to phono input, for MM or MI cartridges. But I have heard faint differences between the two alternatives, in favor of the straight through connection, for very LOMC cartridges. So, for my LOMCs, I try to use either one of my two tonearms that provide the direct wire connection, my Triplanar and my Reed. Surely, you cannot demand scientific proof that someone other than yourself is hearing a small difference in a situation such as this. It is equally OK then to ask you for "scientific proof" that the use of headshells and a plethora of connections is superior. I am sure that the small difference I hear is measurable, but I have no idea how to measure it. It does not seem to be so simple as an effect on frequency response.
|
Davey, that was precisely my point. Although perhaps you make the point much better than I did. The point is if the 3012R can outperform the SAT, those who pay $30,000 for the SAT are making a big mistake. There are likely many many other tone arms In between the SAT and the 3012R that can outperform the 3012R and therefore would crush the SAT. I agree in principle with the list of the flaws in the 3012R that you have offered. On the other hand, I never owned any SME tonearm.
|
I have never owned or listened to an SME 3012R tonearm except perhaps briefly in other peoples systems, but I find it hard to believe that between the SAT and the 3012R there are no other competitor s that might be superior to the SME. From this I would tentatively conclude that the SAT is middle of the road. Assuming that the 3012R is indeed superior to it in an obvious way.
Raul‘s criticism of Michael Fremer calls to my mind one of the positions that MF regularly takes that puzzles me. He often suggests that vertical effective mass should equal horizontal effective mass in the best designs. He is often critical of certain tone arms for not meeting that criterion. Yet everything else I know about tonearm design suggests to me that for the best bass reproduction it is desirable to have high effective mass in the horizontal plane, compared to vertical effective mass. Many fine tonearms are so constructed. This is because reproduction of bass frequencies is dependent on motion of the stylus in the horizontal plane, and damping or controlling that motion by high effective mass is desirable, so that “the tail doesn’t wag the dog”. I wonder if other people have had thoughts along these lines. On the other hand, we all owe MF a debt of gratitude for his long-term support of the vinyl hobby. |
I have never owned or listened to an SME 3012R tonearm except perhaps briefly in other peoples systems, but I find it hard to believe that between the SAT and the 3012R there are no other competitor s that might be superior to the SME. From this I would tentatively conclude that the SAT is middle of the road. Assuming that the 3012R is indeed superior to it in an obvious way.
Raul‘s criticism of Michael Fremer calls to my mind one of the positions that MF regularly takes that puzzles me. He often suggests that vertical effective mass should equal horizontal effective mass in the best designs. He is often critical of certain tone arms for not meeting that criterion. Yet everything else I know about tonearm design suggests to me that for the best bass reproduction it is desirable to have high effective mass in the horizontal plane, compared to vertical effective mass. Many fine tonearms are so constructed. This is because reproduction of bass frequencies is dependent on motion of the stylus in the horizontal plane, and damping or controlling that motion by high effective mass is desirable, so that “the tail doesn’t wag the dog”. I wonder if other people have had thoughts along these lines. On the other hand, we all owe MF a debt of gratitude for his long-term support of the vinyl hobby. |
fleschler, Do you really mean to say that you (formerly) could hear frequencies up to nearly 30kHz? That's one way to interpret your term "high 20kHz". If so, maybe we should be calling you Fido. Seriously, as a doctor I can say that to be only 2db down at 17kHz at age 62, presumably in both ears, is already very unusual, in a good way. That would put you way ahead of most of us.
My real question to you, if Raul doesn't mind a brief diversion from the SAT tonearm topic, is whether you can say in some detail what your friend did not like about the Ypsilon linestage. (When you use the term "preamplifier" separate from the term "phono stage", I assume you refer to a linestage.) A very good friend and neighbor of mine just sold his VAC linestage in favor of the Ypsilon linestage; he already owns the Ypsilon phono. He tends to make these moves based purely on advice from his particular set of gurus, who are all in business to sell audio equipment. I doubt he ever had a critical listen to the Ypsilon (or the VAC, for that matter) prior to purchase. Thanks. |
Not your fault.
i have to work on my concrete thinking. |
Chayro, you and Raul should go out for coffee together. You have much in common. Tubes per se are as linear or even more linear then any solid state devices. What’s more, they are as low or lower in distortion. I am referring to the inherent properties of tubes. Tube amplifiers that are coupled to speakers via Transformers, especially if single-ended at the outputs, often have relatively high measured amounts of distortion, which is usually due to the transformer. |
Re the Townshend Alignment Gauge. It looks to me as though the "beef" is missing from his analysis. (Found a treatise on Vinyl Engine.) His gauge in essence declares what the distortion will be for a given tracking angle error. What I was after is some data to show that "for X degrees of error we measured Y amount of distortion" (of a pure sine wave, for example, and the type of distortion would have to be specified, e.g., harmonic or IM). I recognize that the results would vary according to stylus shape and would probably be frequency-dependent, besides also depending upon radius from the spindle and velocity of the stylus, but you've got to start somewhere. Anyway, I will try to understand the Townshend theory in the meantime.
|
bdp24, Thanks. Can you cite the reference or reproduce the data here? I'd love to go read the article, if I knew where to find it.
|
Has anyone ever shown how tracking angle error really truly equates with distortion of the audio signal? So far as I know the custom is to calculate the audio signal distortion caused by tracking angle error, using an equation originally put forward by either Baerwald or Lofgren in 1941. At that point in history, stereo reproduction was only dreamed of. All cartridges were monophonic. As we know, the stereo signal is reproduced physically in a manner that differs from reproduction of a true Monophonic signal from a mono LP, actually a 78 rpm shellac disc in 1941. Therefore it is probably dangerous to assume that the equation from 1941 is valid for stereo LPs. So my question really is has anyone done measurements in the modern era? |
cleeds, I agree with your citation of "underslung" or "underhung" tonearms as an example of why tracking angle error may not be such a big deal in determining the "distortion" produced during vinyl reproduction. Because you're quite right, such tonearms exhibit much higher tracking angle error at points distant from their single point of tangency to the groove than do conventional "overhung" tonearms. However, I have observed repeatedly that my RS Labs RS-A1 (underhung) tonearm seems (meaning to my subjective ear) to produce actually LESS distortion than does the typical overhung tonearm. To use one analogy, sounds closer to that of a master tape. (Probably someone should make actual measurements of the distortion introduced to the audio signal by both types of tonearm.) I am such a fan of the RS Labs that I thought long and hard about buying a Viv Float last time I was in Tokyo visiting our son. (The cost in Tokyo is about 60% of the US cost.) But I didn't pull the trigger, only because I already own far too many tonearms. Maybe next visit.
So, I thought, what distinguishes these two types, besides the spatial relation of the stylus tip to the spindle? Headshell offset is one answer. In an overhung tonearm, the headshell offset angle is necessary to permit the cantilever to achieve tangency to the groove at two points along the surface of the LP, the inner and outer null points. But the offset angle introduces a source of skating force that is always present, even at the points of tangency. Maybe that (zero headshell offset angle) is a factor in the relative goodness of the few underhung tonearms available in the marketplace.
The designer of the SAT appears to have chosen to minimize tracking angle error/distortion between the two null points of his chosen geometry (as pointed out by John Ellison on Vinyl Asylum), and this results in lots of error of both types on inner grooves. If you're playing LPs with a large empty space ("run-out grooves") between the end of the playing surface and the edge of the label, maybe that's relatively inconsequential. |
Raul, If you will take a look on Vinyl Asylum, you will see that one of the inmates there plotted out the tracking distortion as a function of distance from the spindle. You are correct that the inner groove distortion is very high, but the payoff is that the tracking distortion is very low (for a typical pivoted tonearm) in between the inner and outer null points. The plot is there for anyone to see. I'm not defending the SAT, but it is only fair to keep the facts straight, so far as we can know them.
Send all those faulty Testarossa's to me, please. Especially the 1957-59 race cars. |
I wrote above, "In my opinion the SAT is probably not the tonearm that is way overpriced." I pecked that out on my cell phone; what I meant to say is, "In my opinion the SAT is probably not the ONLY tonearm that is way overpriced." That's sort of a distinction without a difference, but I wanted to be clear.
I agree in one respect with cleeds: You cannot really be sure how something will sound based only on its specifications; ultimately, you need to listen to the particular piece of gear in the context of your own system before passing judgement. However, I often do what Raul has done: Just assess the article based on its external features vs price. When the article is very very expensive, that's about the best one can do because it's not going to be available for personal evaluation. For another example, I often wonder about the Boulder phono stage that costs way in excess of $30K and sports a S/N ratio of around 60db (only). One wonders how it does so badly for S/N, given that it is a solid state design. Nearly any good tube phono can do much better. Or the Ypsilon phono stage that offers only 39db of gain, barely adequate even for an MM, if you want to use a passive or very low gain linestage. I also question megabuck tonearms that hang the counter-weight way aft of the pivot or that fail to position the center of mass of the CW so it lies in the plane of the LP surface. (Durand Telos.) Or tonearms that totally lack provision for anti-skate. You may choose not to use AS, but it ought to be available for your option in a tonearm that costs in excess of $20K, in my opinion. But I think that the market recognizes that the traditional desire of every upwardly mobile yuppie to own a nice "hi-fi" is dead or dying slowly. The manufacturers have responded to this phenomenon by creating a category of cost that is palatable only to the very very wealthy who are likely to assign an "assistant" to assemble an audio system, where said assistant is given carte blanche to spend without thinking. The SAT tonearm is in that category.
By accounts of those who actually own it and whom I trust, the Continuum Cobra tonearm is actually very good. Anyway, it seems cheap compared to the SAT. |
I have no reason to take issue with Raul's fact based analysis. In my opinion the SAT is probably not the tonearm that is way overpriced. I could site a few others that also strike me as being poorly designed and yet cost greater than $20,000. Caveat emptor. |
