The results of the experiment do not surprise me. I have a tnt with a 12 inch jmw and then acquired an old beat up hw19 with an et. I found myself listening to the hw19 more and more until I broke down and sold the jmw and bought 2 more et's. I also pocketed a grand in the process. The only area the jmw was better was the depth of bass. However the et was not lacking and was more natural. It did take me a few weeks to optimize the new et on the tnt but now it is quite a bit better than the et hw19 combo. The et is definitely not plug and play but I like that about it. It is just mind blowing what you get for the dough which is a refreshing change in this hobby. Unless you are looking at buying the one on eprey from Greece for 2200.
When I hear people mentioning shortcomings I immediately think setup as it definitely takes some tinkering. If you are on the fence, try one, you won't regret it.... |
Stringreen, To add to your argument Dertonarm mentioned
already in his previous post this 'lateral balance' which
also reduces the need for the anti-skate. To adjust this
balance one should balance the arm (without a/s)just bellow
the 0 g and move the l. weight till the arm is in equilibrium
at different positions on the radius. If I remember well J. Carr
removed the anti-skate as well the lift from his FR-64S in order
to get better results.
|
Mepearson....just for the heck of it, although a pain in the behind is to try your pivoted arm again, but without a/s. When I compared, I found that no a/s sounded better. I know that's heresy, but because your ET doesn't use it, a fair test is to try the FR with none. |
After reading half of the earlier thread on linear vs. pivoted arms (and being annoyed by the reiteration of wrong and mixed up technical arguments) I want to chime in with some notes.
- "stress" on the cantilever (by linear arms): If you want no deflection of the cantilever, there will be no signal. Most radical practical approach: Use a tiny carbon string glued to a straw, with a very low compliance cartridge that is light, like a beginning of 80's Coral. Or use an Infinity Black Widow arm. Obviously this want give ou much bass below 50Hz.
Otherwise you *choose* deflection along what you find "optimal". Deflection means that the arm moves not in-phase with the cartridge. This is not a bug but *the feature* that produces a signal from the cartridge. The most (and optimally "linear") LF output of a cartridge comes from a perfectly flat, centered LP ( :-) and an arm of infinite mass.
Between these poles, the optimization takes place.
- What is optimal? If we end up tracking the excentricity of the record because of infinite mass and imperfect LPs, it's obviously not optimal - this *real* stress on the cartridge does not produce a musical output of the cartridge, it's just subsonic junk, no master tape has useful musical information below 1Hz. On the other hand we don't want to compromise the tracking of LF musical signals by too low mass, and this extends to phase in the bass too, ie. we need a certain excess LF extension below actual musical notes and subsonic room noise and cues. I assume that there is musical information, mono, on tapes right down to (below) 10Hz. Musically seen, we should keep away from (and stay lower than) 10 Hz. This is not orthodox - but consequent and well thought through. The optimal cut-off/ resonance frequency leads IMO to frequencies in equal interval distance from 0.55 (LP) / 0.75 (EP) Hz and these 10 Hz. This results in an optimal *horizontal* resonance frequency around 2-3Hz (=SQR(0.55 * 10).
- Actually with a useful tool (sadly missing at that time) we could adapt any LP for optimally correct centering, and almost no 0.55Hz wobble, which fucks up music "even" on radial arms BTW.
- Vertical warps have a considerably higher frequency, just watch the cartridge from the side... It's usually double the frequency or more, up to 5-7 Hz. These signals should be filtered out by low enough vertical mass / resonance frequency. Doing the same calculation as before, we should know the LF cut-off of *vertical* signals: These are the out-of-phase signals in the bass. Any useful LP must try to keep at least the amplitude of these signals extremely low, because cartridges have an extremely hard time to track such signals. Usually the out-of-phase signal is high pass filtered below 100 Hz, and below 20Hz there isn't anything useful to be reproduced in a normal room anyway, as it's off-phase, will be cancelled, messes up cartridge tracking and consumes amplifier power with no purpose.
So we end up practically (in the safety zone IMO) with "between 7 and 20Hz", ie. ca. 12Hz *vertically*, preferably even higher. And maybe in this case a bit damping could be desirable.
- The "stress on the cantilever" is mostly dependent on horizontal resonance frequency, which is linked to horizontal mass & compliance . And bearing friction (practically non existing in an air bearing) and wire stiffness.
- It's interesting that one of the very best radial tonearms, the Moerch DP-8 "mimics" properties of a well set up air bearing arm: Very high horizontal mass with average vertical mass. :-) :-) :-)
- Problems of linear arms:
Wire stiffness - no lever advantage here. Wrong setup, changing lateral setup with VTA. In my ET 2.5 this is a problem. The thing that suffers most is... the bass. Very audible differences here with careful setup!
Subchassis movement: A subchassis (if desirable at all :-) should swing in the rotational plane quite lower than 2Hz... I don't know of any, and it would be problematic too. Wit the usual air-bearing arms (placed tangentially) the subchassis movement will be tracked by the cartridge, as will be any lateral acceleration of a turntable (seen from cartridge into the arm).
A linear arm has much less sensitivity to this, because the lateral forces cancel to a major degree, dynamically. But instead of forces on the cartridge you get forces on the bearing. These are audible too.
- Problems of radial arms: The cantilever pulls off-line of the tonearm axis, creating a skating force. This varies with musical signal, the tracked place on the record (radius), and surface properties which change more than we might expect. These *dynamic* skating forces constantly energize the horizontal resonance of cartridge/arm and modulate the musical signal. And the amount is dependent on the magnitude of the offset angle, giving a considerable advantage (here) with longer arms - or other more unorthodox approaches, like the Thales arms or similar.
BTW the same happens in the vertical plane with a "correct" vertical bearing placed exactly at the height of the LP tracking plane...
- In the end a well set up linear arm (not complicated, but still not often attained) has potentially a more stable tracking of LF musical signals.
- It's a complex trade-off! Setup is very important, and careful listening too. And better not based on wrong or semi-wrong theories, as much "expert" bandwidth as they take.
- Thanks Mepearson!
PS: I *like* to listen to music on a well set up vinyl rig... And yes, the proof is in the listening. |
... wouldn't a motor-driven(close to the speed of the motor of the cutter) linear tracker be best(theoretically)? On most records, the cutting engineer varies the cutting head's motor speed as it move across the master. Grooves with low dynamic range are spaced tightly together, which allows more music per side. Grooves with greater dynamic range must be spaced farther apart, to prevent crosstalk or even groovewall penetration on dynamic peaks. The only way a playback headshell "knows" the speed of an inward spiralling groove is to follow it. A motor driven playback headshell would inevitably fall behind the groove at some point and push ahead of it at others. This could only be prevented by some sort of "look ahead" technology and a complex controller to alter the motor speed based on what's coming next, on a groove-by-groove basis. Good luck getting anyone to build that! |
Excuse me for the mistakes that I make here, but, if the cutter is a linear tracker, isn't it driven by a motor, and although it might introduce more problems than it solves, wouldn't a motor-driven(close to the speed of the motor of the cutter) linear tracker be best(theoretically)? |
Very late to this thread .. I've had a go at setting my FR64S (on a TD124) at 231.5 and I like what I'm hearing.
What I'm wondering is the correct arm interface to stylus tip distange for this arrangement ... I have things set at SPU distance (52mm) but wonder if I should drop to the standard 50mm or less? Not sure quite what I should be aiming for? |
Lewm, honestly, I believe that the lateral balance was kind of "forgotten" in most of today's designs.
Or "disposed"/"omitted" for "lack of importance" and "increase of complexity and cost". It is a smart and elegant option to eliminate a design inherent issue of pivot design right at the source. In the these areas we are talking about minor improvements in high-end audio reproduction. To ignore a design feature which unquestionable has only positive effects to the performance of a pivot tonearm and thus to the sonic performance of the cart/arm combination is hard to understand.
But maybe I am just missing the inherent sonic benefits of skating force. |
Thanks, guys. The thought of trying to lift any one of my at least 70-lb tts from the rear whilst standing at the front and also playing with the lateral balance weight was not a happy one. I did adjust the lateral balance of the DV505 with the table level, as per DT's suggestion, so I guess I will leave well enough alone.
DT, I by no means meant to imply that the lateral balance weight is not needed with a straight-pipe tonearm, I just meant that the need for it is a bit less than when using an S-shaped or J-shaped arm tube. This must have given license to eliminate it entirely, for good or ill. Or at least that is my only explanation for why it has been omitted in the modern era of tonearms. |
Ddriveman, the FR-60-series manual has a lot of mistakes.
There are geometrical mistakes as well - not just this hilarious advise with the lifting of the turntable.
If there is a skating force due to offset from pivot/stylus line, then this will show on horizontal level as good.
Genesis168, you can either dismount the whole antiskating device by removing the central screw which bolts it to the armshaft (this is the smart way) while performing the lateral balance adjustment, or you just support the device till it is without contact to the arm (w/a matchbox or similar) - this is the fast and simple approach.
Both work just fine and allow lateral adjustment without any unwanted "by-force". |
Dertonarm, Lewm
I too agree that lifting of tt is not prefereble and for me, I cannot even lift my Galibier Gavis TT since it is almost 100lbs. But I was referring to the FR64/66 manual which recommends lifting the front of the TT to check for lateral balance (after setting the level balance and with Zero VTF and zero antiskate). It seems from the FR manual that in order to check for lateral balance, one has to create a situation whereby the arm, which is in zero balance when level, is then put into a positive/negative balance to check if it swings. |
Der,
How do you remove/disengage the AS on the FR66s? Do i just remove the screw and pull it off? |
Lewm, of course, but that is not the problem - as long as I have the option to nullify this off-set by setting a lateral balance.
Whereas on a many of todays "straight" pivot tonearms with "small mass displacement" at the cartridge mounting headshell-part only, a lateral balance option is missing and one has to mess around with antiskating compensation.
If we can tame the beast at the source - why missing the chance ? |
Ddriveman, It is interesting that you learned to lift the front of the table. I did find some old posts on Vinyl Asylum recommending the same strategy. But the majority were for lifting the rear. When I thought about it, lifting the front end would cause the tonearm, with or without a lateral balance weight, to want to swing around all the way to the rear extreme of its arc. That did not seem like a good idea. However, I certainly am not trying to contradict you, if it worked for you.
DT, Headshell or no headshell, an S- or J-shaped arm tube still has most of its mass well to one side of the straight line between stylus and pivot, whereas a straight pipe, most popular these days, will be less extremely displaced to one side of that line. This was my only point. But, like Ddriveman, I am interested to learn of another way to set the lateral balance that does not involve lifting one end or the other of the turntable, which is an idea I do not like either. |
Ddriveman, I can not see any negative point in adjusting zero full balance while the TT is dead level. If one tries to adjust any static or dynamic balanced mode for a tonearm on any given TT, I would always recommend to do this with all other parameters stable. If the lateral balance adjustment is performed with the TT in place and level, you can be sure that the result of the adjustment is not a by-product of some other static mode which took place only for a brief moment while adjusting (i.e. lifting the TT).
BTW - I can't see any advantage of the "lift the TT"-method.
Besides that, it would be a though act to follow with a handful of serious TTs out there (Continuum, MS 3000/5000/8000, Rockport, Apolyt (BTW - there is a 13 year old used Apolyt for sale on ebay-Germany right now - 2 days left and over EURO 12k already (no - it is not me selling it..) Verdier etc.
The adjustment of lateral balance is easy to do as described earlier. The cueing cylinder on the FR-60-series tonearms can be adjusted in heights so the arm rest/cueing rest won't interfere with horizontal balance.
The antiskating device can be either dismounted for a few minutes or disengaged while adjusting lateral balance.
So there really isn't any point to alter the level of the TT while bringing the tonearm in full lateral balance. |
Dertonarm,
If lifting the TT is wrong as shown in the FR64/66 manual, then what would you suggest please. |
Lewm, Ddriveman, while I too have bought some items from Tommy of TCA, this advise lifting the turntable is not a great one.
The cueing cylinder of the FR-tonearms can be height-adjusted in a few seconds.
The FR-60-series manual - BTW - contains some mistakes.
This is not the only one.
Lifting the turntable to ease the procedure is plain... - well, you guess what I want to say.
A J- or S- shaped pivot tonearm is designed to accommodate a straight headshell.
It is still the off-set angle - being a larger one or a smaller one.. (J- or S- shapeand 9", 10" or 12") - we are talking about. |
Lewm,
Actually, for lateral weight adjustments, you are suppose to tilt the turntable backwards i.e. lift the front of the turntable. This would avoid interfering with the arm rest. This is explained in the FR64/66 manual. If the turntable is very heavy and difficult to lift, you can set the balance weight such that the arm is tilted slightly backwards and with antiskate set to zero see, if the arm will stay in position when place in the middle of the platter, This was taught to me by Tommy Cheuk of Topclass Audio.
I tend to agree with you the J or S shape tonearms seem to be more sensitive to lateral balance. I have a Micro Seiki MAX237/282 tonearm with several armwands. The J shaped armwand seem to be more senstive and in fact Micro Seiki recommends adding more antiskate when using it in place of the straight armwand. Hope this helps. |
I did some web searching since posting my question. It seems that the lateral balance weight is mostly made necessary by the S-shaped or J-shaped arm tubes prevalent on the vintage Japanese tonearms, because such shapes put most of the tonearm mass to the right or to the outside of a line drawn from the stylus tip to the pivot. With a straight pipe, the lateral balance weight is less of a necessity, although it would still be of some use due to the offset angle at the headshell. There were several opinions regarding how to set the balance weight. The most common method appears to be to lift the rear of the tt by a small amount and then set the balance weight so the tonearm (set for 0 VTF and 0 anti-skate and "floating") does not shift position during this maneuver. For the Dynavector, I am not sure this would work well, because of the magnetic arm rest which would prevent free motion whilst lifting the rear of the table. Moreover, the DV505 manual says nothing about lifting the tt. I'll figure it out. |
Dear Lewm, correct applied lateral balance means the tonearm will stand "still" at any point of the arc over the record. This of course in the state of zero balance (= O VTF and O antiskating) only millimeters above the record surface and horizontal full balanced (= parallel to surface). Full balanced with mounted cartridge. If so - and if the tonearm indeed won't move neither inward nor outward from any set position, it is in optimal lateral balance now. Which in turn mean that the skating force initialized by the offset angle in a pivot design (save for those 2 or 3 designs following the Thales-principle) in now nullified at the bearing. Consequently the needed antiskating is now very little (ideal it now will be almost zero - which it is with the FR-66s for instance).
So in any pivot tonearm offering the option of lateral balance, the task is to bring the tonearm into a state of true balance unaffected any more by any off-set angle in the cartridge-mounting/headshell.
By doing so you minimize any needed antiskating force.
Yes, you are right, lateral balance was standard with the most of the top-flight Japanese tonearms of the 1970ies and 1980ies. But this is only one of a few well proven design features of pivot tonearm design which got somehow forgotten along the way of high-end evolution during the past 2 decades.
It has some advantages if a mechanical design has some graduated engineers among its parents. |
Dear DT, My Dynavector DV505 has the lateral balance weight, too. And after I became familiar with it, I began to notice that this was a feature on many of the best Japanese tonearms of the 80s and 90s. However, that feature seems to have vanished entirely from the design of even the most expensive pivoted tonearms these days, including the Dynavector DV507 and the MkII version. Why do you think this is the case?
And I must admit I am not sure how to use it correctly; I set it so that the arm is stable in the lateral plane, when VTF =0 and anti-skate is OFF. This mandated bringing the lateral balance weight in as close as possible to the main vertical shaft. I am not sure that makes sense. The English translation of the DV505 instruction manual leaves something to be desired in terms of clarity. Have I used the correct method? Thanks. |
Mepearson wanted to test the FR-64s against the ET2 with as many parameters stable as possible. Thus his test was a valid one. Furthermore - in the most complete test the FR-64s ever got by any audio magazine (09/1980 German HiFi-Exklusiv), the FR-64s was tested for the books with a Shure V15 III to illustrate its low bearing friction. Despite the fact that this was far away from an ideal match in terms of resonance frequency, the Shure was able to show its maximum trackability with the lowest VTF ever in the FR-64s. A very good test by the way to illustrate bearing friction in a pivot tonearm.
So the FR-64s should be working with a Benz Glider too.
Today we have very few cartridges which actually do have a compliance lower than 10xdyne. All top-flight cartridges on the market today do feature a compliance of 10xdyne +. Same for all Koetsu - except for the older Matsushita made original Koetsu Black of the late 1980ies.
Resonance frequency is one thing - but not all important. Energy transfer (if little noticed by the majority of writers ) and inner balance (which the FR-64s has, thanks to his lateral balance option which almost eliminates the skating-force where it initiates ) too are - in my humble opinion - key features of a pivot tonearm addressing most of the design's issues.
|
Dear Logenn: He already sold it, at least I saw it in Agon ads.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Ddriveman is correct.
The key issue here is for Mepearson's test to be valid he should look to revise his testing by either substituting a different higher mass cartridge, Denon 103 for example, or changing the weight of the headshell on the 64s (18 g), to perhaps a lighter one, Yamamoto tsuge wood headshell (7.5g).
Since I have no experience with the Benz, this second idea needs to be researched to determine if the change makes the setup more compatible. You have eliminated almost 10 g which could make a difference. |
Logenn, Hiho, Ken Sugano always favored the Fidelity Research FR-64/66s tonearms for his own cartridges when asked back in the early 1980ies. The FR-64s is rather a 10" pivot tonearm. This is just for the books. |
Hiho,
Actually the FR64s is a 10inch arm (245mm effective length). Ikeda-san himself has a writeup that says anything less than 10" is not favoured by him. And I agree that the 12" arm and the FR66s would have reduced tracking distrotions compared to the FR64s. And in the context of a low compliance cartridge like the Koetsu, the 12" FR66s with its higher mass is actually a better match than the FR64s.
For me, the thing about Logenn's review is that it highlights the importance of matching the cartridge and tonearm. The FR64s and FR66s are a wonderful match for the low compliance Koetsu, Ortfon SPU, Denon DL103 and Ikeda/FR cartridges. In the original review of Mepearson, he matched the Benz Glider SL with the FR64s and compares it to the ET-2. With the Benz Glider, the ET-2 arm is a better match than the FR64s and to me, that's going to account for the most significant difference in sound between the 2 arms. But if you put a Koetsu or SPU cartridge on the ET-2, then it would not be a good match for it and unfair to comapre it then with a FR64s/66s. So again, for me, there is a limitation of being able to compare the ET-2 and the FR64/66s since they have such a big differnece in mass and matching ideal cartridges. For me, if we wanted to compare a linear tracker like the ET-2 to a pivoted arm, we should try to find arms that would match well with a common cartrigde and so for example comparison between a Graham or Triplanar, using the Benz Glider would be more ideal. FWIW. |
.
Logenn: "I can not comment on the wonderful review between the ET and the 64s, because there are so many factors that could influence the test."
Thanks for the nice description and review of the FR-66s. I just want to point out that the FR-66s is a 12 inch tonearm and whereas the FR-64 is a 9 incher. I understand Mepearson has reached a conclusion in his experiment that he prefers the ET linear tracker and I would assume this is due to the superior (geometric) tracking over a 9 inch pivot arm. But what happens when the ET is compared to a 12 incher? The conclusion might be different, I suspect. I think a three way comparison will give a better understanding by having a linear arm, a 9 inch arm, and a 12 inch arm.
______ |
Sorry to chime in so late to this interesting discussion, but I want to share my experience with linear arms vs a Fidelity Research arm.
I am currently using a Fidelity Research Fr 66S/Orsonic headshell/Ikeda silver headshell wire with a Koetsu Coralstone on a Technics sp 10 Mk III. The cartridge was set up and adjusted with a Mint LP protractor custom made for this turntable and arm set up.
I have owned both the Walker Black Diamond and Kuzma Airline Arm, both of which are inspired designs with extraordinary performance, and which I could easily live happily ever after with. I could talk about the relative merits of each but that would distract.
We are in consensus that equipment compatibility and personal taste have an influence on all tests and as such any comments are ones personal opinion.
Before acquiring the FR 66s, I was looking for a high mass tone arm to control and manage the cartridge in order to bring out the best from low compliance cartridges, like Koetsu. In general we all know they have a wonderful midrange, but a reputation for a sloppy less than stellar bass control. Since I plan to always have at least one Koetsu in my inventory of cartridges to listen and enjoy, I landed on the FR 66s.
From the first listening session, I realized I was on to something special. I went through 3 headshells before finding the Orsonic for this cartridge.
IMO and in my system they are a perfect marriage. All the weaknesses were
minimized or eliminated. The bass is powerful and controlled, something I was unable to achieve with the linear trackers. The dynamics
greatly eclipsed any linear tracker i experienced in the past. Micro detail and high frequency extension virtually matched the linear trackers. This is the one area that was a real horse race, too close to call. And for tractability, I would rate them super close again. The air around the instruments may be a touch better with the linear trackers, but not an overwhelming difference.
I can not comment on the wonderful review between the ET and the 64s, because there are so many factors that could influence the test. With my system, I am pleased with the Fidelity Research performance and recommend it. |
I would only add that(in theory at least) the TT should not be so lightly sprung that the moving horizontal mass of the LT affects level of carriage. |
Anything that is good for a high quality arm should do fine. It should not matter whether the arm is straight or radial tracking. |
Been reading this topic and just wondered if there is a minimum quality level of turntable one should have before considering a linear tracking tonearm for future reference. Currently, my analog front end is a Rega P3-24 with standard RB 301 arm and a Benz MC Gold Cartridge. |
I think the kind of phase distortion MikeL talked about has to do with "angular misalignment will mean that one channel of the stereo signal will be played fractionally before the other adding phase distortion?" The quote is from a TNT Audio review of the new SME 12 inch arm. I never thought of it that way but it makes sense. . |
Hi Mepearson,
Any time you're interested, contact me offline. I suspect that you have found an arm in the ET-2 that floats your boat in ways that others cannot.
It would be a difficult (impossible) experiment to carry out - to produce a pivoted arm with identical sonics (with a given cartridge) to the ET-2 - save of course the inherrent characteristics of the geometry.
If this were possible, I suspect that this would become your #2 choice in arms.
For those of you who have not done so, download the two part ET-2 tonearm manual (PDF). It's in old-timey font, from the good old daze and in two parts from back when bandwidth was much more limited than it is today.
The manual is chock full of great information on tonearms in general, and of course with specific information on the ET-2.
You'll not only understand your own tonearm better, but will gain insight into the genius behind the ET-2 arm.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
I want to thank everyone for the kind comments. I have been out of town all week on business and just returned last night so this is the first chance I have had to read all of the new comments posted.
Dertonarm-the mailman just pulled into my driveway with the package of screws you sent me. Thanks again for all of your help.
Oilman-I have looked at the ET-2 many times as it tracks a record and I have never seen any stylus deflection. Unless there was something seriously wrong, I doubt you could see this with the naked eye.
Thom-I am mulling your offer of the protractor. I used the Dennesen Soundtracker as Dertonarm was adamant that it was the only available alignment tool that would set the geometry correctly for the FR-64s. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about the best geometry for the FR-64s and I trusted Dertonarm's knowledge and experience. In the past, I purchased protractors from Wally for use with my JMW-10 and Rega RB-300 arms and used those instead of the Dennesen. The bottom line is that regardless of the method of setup of pivoted arms, I eventually find my way back to the ET-2 (same with the great Counterpoint SA-5.1-I have tried to replace it many times. The latest was with the Mcintosh C2300 and I sent the C2300 packing). I have learned over the years the hard way not to sell a component I love until I am very sure that the "better" replacement is in fact better. There is nothing worse than selling off a component you love in order to fund its "better" replacement only to find that what you just bought is not in the same league as what you had and your system has taken a step backwards. Now sets in the panic of trying to hunt down the same component you just sold and hope that you can find one in as good as shape as what you had.
With regards to phase coherence-I think this is a very interesting topic and it is generating some thought provoking threads here. Maybe MikeL is onto something. Whether or not that special something that linear tracking arms do that both Mike and I hear is a result of phase coherence that emenates from the correct geometry I don't know. What I do know is that there is something very special going on. If a byproduct of correct geometry is reduced phase shift, then it is just one more good thing to throw on the pile.
As for the comment about pump location-as I have stated before, I have a dedicated stereo room which has another small room adjancent to it which is used as an electronics work shop area and storage area for other gear and tubes. My pumps and surge tank are located in that room and are neither seen or heard in my listening room. The ambient noise level in my room is so low that you could literally hear a pin drop. |
I re read Thom's very insightful post. Very articulate and eloquent. A text book example of how to generalize and still make lot of sense(althogh you do site some relevant first hand experiences). |
Amen Frogman and Moisin ...
I've spent countless hours ... starting off by looking up someone's discography, and finding myself on Youtube listening to some dusty old performances. It's an incredible resource for the music lover and music historian.
Imagine if we had Youtube performances of Liszt performing the Hungarian Rhapsodies? I doubt we'd gripe about the sound quality.
And ... back to this thread. While I'm a manufacturer and would love to sell everyone something, I encourage more of you to bond with your gear (as time permits and doesn't interfere with your musical enjoyment).
Mepearson sets a fine example for you - to spend a bit more time and a few less dollars ... dollars that can be spent taking your wife out to dinner or buying some records.
Back to our untuned Strad ... I was actually in a music store when a woman tried to return a guitar because it was out of tune and her little darling couldn't play it!
Oh ... and to Moisan ... next time, I'll use "who woulda thunk?" instead of "go figure" (grin).
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
In case anyone misunderstands. I meant my above comment (?) in the most positive sense. Wonderful commentary from both Thom Mackris and Mosin. |
"The pivoted arm experiment is over".
But the melody lingers on. |
"A Stradivarius out of tune is just an out of tune violin". Thom Mackris
"...but I can listen to a YouTube performance on computer speakers and thoroughly enjoy it. Why? It's because what we do at the end of the day is about the music itself. If we can't close our eyes and hear at least some of what the artist intended, we don't get it". Mosin
!!!! |
Don_c55 - I am sure that Mepearson did adjust the respective SRA with both tonearms.
And then the respective SRA is a matter of the cutting angle of groove under track anyway. So the "SRA" should rather be set groove-compliant to the respective record. Which counts for any cartridge NOT fitted with a spherical shaped stylus.
I think Mepearson did conduct a fine experiment with very little variables and did so in a most stringent and straight-forward way.
Most other audiophiles would had a hard time equal the very straight and non-egomatic way he handled this. |
Lewm, agree. " the aphorism of "Garbage in, garbage out" was probably worng choice of word to illustrate what Frogman was trying to make a point for, Which to me was very clear we are not talkinng really garbage hear, but whenever source importance conversation comes up this aphorism is usually used. I am sure the meaning of what he was trying to say is not misunderstood by many.
I also tend to think that the 'tracking errors' that we are talking may not be (just) the phase distortion, (but I think Mike's interpretation may not be entirely off track)i think it is more like 'reading' errors by stylus due to one channel info reading more than the other or one channel info read abit earlier than the other. Just think of 3D geometry of hills and valleys and groove cuts and how stylus might follow different path with pivot arms than the linear arms. Common sense will tell you that linear would definitely do a better job or exhibit minimal errors vs the pivot arms. However, how worse (in comparison)the pivot arms would read is not entirely proved other than that percieved in back to back listening.
It would be great to find some white paper on this. I am sure it can be easily shown that one arm read more correct vs the other. By converting analog signal in to digital and comparing the results with original digital mastertape? |
Your Experiment is flawed!
Neither arm has an "Extreme" height adjustment for setting SRA on MC cartridges which is necessary for optimal sound!
You do not know what the cartridge really sounds like and the comparison is only s "guess" at most!
The arm needs am "indexed" micrometer head height adjustment like the VPI JMW (10 or 12) or Phantom arms. |
Hi,
First of all, Thom, go figure is my saying. Check the archives. ;)
To the rest of you guys,
Thom is my friend, so I can talk to him that way. Besides, he has his Nomex suit on.:)
All that said, I'll try to be the voice of reason...
To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" LOL
Seriously, here's the thing; I make a turntable, but I can listen to a YouTube performance on computer speakers and thoroughly enjoy it. Why? It's because what we do at the end of the day is about the music itself. If we can't close our eyes and hear at least some of what the artist intended, we don't get it. (Still, I like good stuff.)
Tonearms? At some point it is all about flavors. The same goes for any piece of audio equipment you can name. Me? I don't have much to add to the conversation, although I suspect that one of the opinions here is the correct one, but I haven't owned all the equipment in question. So, why bother posting at all? Who really knows, but I thought I would toss out a two cent opinion with the hopes that some guys would stop a minute to think about what audio really means. I believe it is sort of about equipment, but not really. It is more about what moves you in a significant way, isn't it?
Regards,
Win
. |
Hi Mepearson,
Youve done some solid work in your experiments, and I applaud your putting it all on the line to relate your experiences - this, in light of the fact that many on this and other lists eat their young.
I find recommendations like those of Dertonearm to be amusing - that of dedicating a specific alignment to a specific tonearm. Me ... Ive been an unapologetic Bearwaald guy, but thats what makes horse racing. The key for me is *accurately* setting up the arm - using an arc protractor.
To this latter point, my last exposure to an ET-2 was in the early days, when I was still collaborating with Peter (Redpoint). I had not yet ventured into arc protractors, and the arms under comparison were the ET-2 with surge tank, pressure regulator (set to 6-8 psi, fed by 30 psi pump), a Moerch DP-6/precision red wand, and a Graham 2.2.
Id love to have that ET-2 back now that Ive become sold on arc protractors. My takeaway at the time was that of an audible drop off in tracing distortion in the ET-2 (when compared with the two pivoted arms), along with a leaner but very tuneful bass. The ET-2 tracked flawlessly with both Benz and Denon carts.
The reason Id like to return to this experiment, is that my memory tells me that the order of magnitude difference between the ET-2s perceived tracing distortion and that of the two pivoted arms was equivalent to the jump I experienced with every arm for which Ive re-set, used an arc protractor. I noticed another similarity with linear trackers when I adopted arc protractors. The setup is much less sensitive to small changes in VTA (a good thing).
I would not propose that you return to the FR tonearm, but at such time you get the urge to play with it again, contact me privately, and Ill draw a Baerwaald protractor up for you to play with.
I think the ET-2 is a brilliantly conceived piece of gear, and if youre dedicated to finding a nice location for your pump (or quieting it down if its noisy) then it is a very viable solution.
Regarding the latter discussions in this thread about phase distortion relating to pivoted arms ... well, we might as well be discussing super string theory. There are so many elements that can contribute to the perception of a band playing in or out of time, and while geometry is perhaps the easiest one to pontificate about, my experience is that it has the least effect.
This is yet another example of my basic tenet - that varying architectures, when conceived and executed competently, will converge on a central point of musicality.
As usual however, there are so many other variables to consider. If ones basic geometry is off (pivoting arm) it will swamp any other effect, and one runs the risk of setting up a straw man argument, shooting down pivoted arms (instead of the real culprit - inaccurate setup), and proving nothing in the process. A Stradivarius out of tune is just an out of tune violin.
The arms Ive had most recent extensive experience with are the Tri-Planar, Schroeder Reference, and Durand Talea. Never would the words phase distortion come to mind when listening to these three fine arms. The qualifier is - when the geometry is set up accurately - with an arc protractor.
With all due respect to Mike L, I challenge the veracity of your comments due to the probability of a flawed setup which Id rather not discuss on this forum.
Id love to demonstrate this to you all at this years Audiofest. In both of the rooms well be exhibiting, the phase performance of the speakers (Green Mountain Audio and Daedalus) is extraordinary, and readily exposes flaws elsewhere in the signal chain. Believe it or not, you wont find a horn in a Galibier room this year. Go figure ...
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
Dear Nilthepill, I don't think the aphorism "Garbage in; garbage out" applies here. It would be applicable to a situation where one expects a "bad" sounding LP to sound "good", because one is using a $150,000-turntable. In this case, phase distortion can be assumed to be just phase distortion wherever it occurs. However, the question remains whether the distortions that Mike perceives are truly due to phase aberrations or are just the best descriptor he can think of for what he is hearing. If it's not really phase disortion but something else that occurs at the level of transduction, then all bets are off. |
"Drop in the bucket, yes. But, have we not shown time and time again that errors at the source turn out ot be the most harmfull? "Garbage in, garbage out", and all that?"
Absolutely! Especially in Vinyl playback sources. Isn't that the truth that the signal is magnified like 100's of time thru phono pre? so will the phase/tracking error!
Accepting the fact that there are indeed phase errors down stream, like Dertonearm says. |
Ddriveman, Frogman I am familiar with the Ikeda 9 EMPL, 9R, 9 Musa and 9 Omega. They all have in common a very unhealthy correspondence between low VTF, high mass and a very special compliance (to say the least...).
All the Ikeda 9 series cartridges are very special to set-up and to operate.
They work best only with 3 or 4 tonearms and the owner must know about all the special aspects of their alignment and their operation needs and features.
That so few know how to adjust and operate them is the reason why so very few actually are featured in western high-end systems.
Regarding their sonic capabilities, they are hardly matched by any other cartridge.
But their operation is a nightmare.
Certainly the wrong partner for any linear tracker - due to their high mass and very special set-up requirements.
The old DECCAs were far too unstable and indeed did always suffer from what I would call the worst quality control in the history of cartridge manufacturing.
The current production DECCA/London are far better - in all respects and especially regarding quality.
The ET2/2.5 indeed does perform surprising well with a large range of cartridges and compliances. However - it does not perform well with heavy body cartridges (stone body Koetsu for instance). |
Frogman, I agree. It is always surprising how obvious a single variable change can be-- particularly at the source.
Ddriveman, you may be onto something: Vic of Trans-Fi wrote me that the Decca Reference is his favorite cartridge on Terminator linear arm. |
Drop in the bucket, yes. But, have we not shown time and time again that errors at the source turn out ot be the most harmfull? "Garbage in, garbage out", and all that?
Is it too far fetched to assume that the effect of a phase error added to an already phase distorted waveform is, in absolute terms, greater than the effect of the same amount of phase distortion added to a more phase correct waveform? In other words, the effect is more than one of simply cumulative effect. I realize that this may be completely off the wall, especially considering my very limited technical knowledge, but I always keep going back to the idea that there are things going on with music playback that we don't fully understand. The importance of what goes on at the source is always easy to understand. |
I am with Dertonearm on this one. There are SO many sources of phase error in a typical audio system and in anyone's listening room that what's happening with the stylus is a drop in the bucket. Plus also the "phase linearity" of a particular linear tracking tonearm would be a product of its mechanism, as well as of its basic topology. So, I think there may be large differences among different linear trackers. But maybe "phase" is the wrong term to describe what Mike might be talking about, as he suggests. |
