Hello all, Recently procured a Feickert Blackbird w/ the Jelco 12 inch tonearm. The table is really good, and its a keeper. The Jelco is also very good, but not as good as my Fidelity Research FR66s. So the Jelco will eventually hit Ebay, and the question remains do I keep the FR66s or sell that and buy something modern in the 5-6 K range. My only point of reference is my old JMW-10 on my Aries MK1, so I don't know how the FR66s would compare to a modern arm. So I'd like to rely on the collective knowledge and experience of this group for a recommendation.
Keep the FR66s, or go modern in the 5-6K range, say a Moerch DP8 or maybe an SME.
Any and all thoughts and opinions are of course much appreciated.
Yes, the UNI is "pricey". My only beef about cost is that, at that cost, it does not allow measurement of P2S with any accuracy. When I brought this up, after purchase, I was offered the opportunity to buy an accessory which fills that void. However, the additional cost of that accessory was half again as much as that of the UNI. I demurred. I subsequently "inherited" a Feickert alignment jig, which has a well calibrated arm for accurate measurement of P2S. That's what I use now. In subsequent versions of his protractor, DT seems to have rectified this deficiency while also reducing cost. The UNI was his first go at designing a protractor, evidently. Still, in all, he thought of every other aspect of the problem in designing the UNI. Nice work. Fleib, It's not an arc protractor; it's more like the Dennesen, of which I also am an owner for the past 3 decades. But to say that the UNI is like the Dennesen is to say that a Ferrari is like a Miata.
Now that I think about it, I asked a dumb question. Of course a single set up protractor can have any 2 nulls drawn or etched on it. I was thinking from the standpoint of protractor with a single standard alignment, hence the question.
Is that Audio Beat a review or a marketing business? Probably both. Gregory did a nice sales job with only a deception or two, but the only thing that really interests me is the UNI-P2S, and he only mentioned it. Follow the link and you have to download. It's probably a fancy Dennesen tonearm locator, just as all these alignment grid/pivot pointer protractors are based on the SoundTractor, only they're better.
Thanks for the link Folkfreak. Those Dertonearms look interesting. A little pricey maybe.
Dietrich’s UNIProtractor, which I also use, is set up to align to his UNI Din standard which was discussed earlier in this thread. The UNIProtractor is a very accurate system but does rely upon being able to align with the tonearm pivot very accurately, while this can be performed very easily on arms like a Kairos which has a defined pivot point it can be much harder on an SME IV say where the precise pivot point is hard to spot A review of the current iteration of this tool is here
Lewm, **I use the UNI for the DV505. Dertonearm's design is complex and a bit cumbersome to use, but it is also ingenious and permits very accurate alignment because of the ancillary tools he provides. However, I cannot quote distances in fractions of a mm; I'm just a slave to the UNI. Life is short**
Is this UNI like using 2 protractors? Seems to me no individual protractor can align for both Stevenson on the inner and Loefgren on the outer.
My point was not about whatever is the "correct" geometry for a DV505/507, because I don't know what that is, except it's likely to be at least close to Stevenson. My point was that twisting the cartridge/cantilever in the headshell such that the arc described by the cantilever is not in the same plane as that of the vertical bearing of the tonearm did in fact seem to produce unpleasant distortion (as opposed to "pleasant" distortion). This is in agreement with Dover's line of thinking. I heretofore kept this to myself, because this is a single observation of mine. I was very interested to see that Dover and some others have arrived at the same conclusion.
In my case, I own a UNItractor, from Dertonearm. He kindly supplied me with a template dedicated to the DV505. That's what I now use to align my DV505, and it results in "correct" alignment of the arc of the cantilever vis a vis the arc of the vertical bearing. Separately, I also have demonstrated to my own satisfaction that the DV505 comes close with standard Stevenson, using a Stevenson protractor I downloaded from VE for free. But I don't now use that; I use the UNI for the DV505. Dertonearm's design is complex and a bit cumbersome to use, but it is also ingenious and permits very accurate alignment because of the ancillary tools he provides. However, I cannot quote distances in fractions of a mm; I'm just a slave to the UNI. Life is short.
**Result is effective length of 254.97 and overhang of 16.158. This is impossible with the Dynavector unless you extend the length of the arm or headshell.**
The arm has 2 non-coincidental pivots, an ingenious design.
I calculated the effective length required to achieve a 21.5 degree offset with Lofgren A for the Dynavector arms. This would result in the cartridge being in line with the vertical bearings.
Using the formula Effective Length = (r1+r2) / [ (sine(a)*[ 1 + ((r1+r2)squared / (r1*r2))] ] where r1/r2 are the nulls & (a) is the offset angle.
Result is effective length of 254.97 and overhang of 16.158. This is impossible with the Dynavector unless you extend the length of the arm or headshell.
This underpins that one really cannot judge an arm without at least trying the geometry that the original arm was designed for. Furthermore Rauls contention that he altered the mounting distance for Lofgren A to optimise the performance on his Dyanvector was probably wrong unless he modified the arm.
Dear Raul, You wound me deeply. I was the greatest tutor in all of the Americas, and look what I have become. I have failed you. Now I am just a hollow shell of a tutor, like an empty tortoise shell in the sand, I'm a dead tortoise tutor, not to say I tutor dead tortoises, but my tutoring, he is very sick. I thought I answered all your questions, but usted no entiende. Si me lo permite.
Yes, the Loefgren calculations are correct. They are the basis of all the others. The spreadsheets, VE calculators are the same thing in different formats. Your answers should be the same. If you start out with L the spreadsheet or calculator will show you M distance, offset, error, etc. for each alignment. I don't have your spreadsheet. I told you how to access the calculator. You don't need to log in. Follow my instructions and it's all there. If you can't use the spreadsheet or calculator I suggest you build something else. How about a nice headshell holder display block?
Dear lewm: Dynavector specs are really odd because don’t even the theoretical Stevenson calculations with the 241 effective length, 226 P2S and the 21.5° in offset angle they writed as tonearm specs.
Using IEC standard the nearest ( Stevenson. ) equations calculations gives:
L = 241.162 overhang: 15.162 and offset angle: 21.624° for the specification of P2S: 226.
Seems to me that even the manufacturer calculations are not accurate neither the protractor that comes with the tonearm.
Btw, when you used Baerwald in that tonearm: did you changed the P2S distance?, because it must be change it.
In the other side the difference between the Baerwald/Stevenson offset angle is lower than 1.5° but the other Baerwald parameters must be take in count in precise way.
Anyway, what do you think about the Löfgren papers/equations and the fixed parameters/foundation data those papers/equations states?
I’m asking you because, as always, fleib never gives a direct answer about.
Could you help? or maybe: Dover? griffithds or: some one else?
I think that must be at least one other person with the precise and right answer even if is different answer from my opinion.
Raul, My job is being a consultant to you? This is news to me, am I on the payroll? Maybe a flat fee for consultation, or maybe I misunderstand. I thought this thread is about high quality arms around $6K or less. It looks like all the DV arms have the same geometry and the 507 may look a little weird, but I don't care about that.
I thought I was your geometry teacher - remedial 101. I guess not because you're assigning the curriculum. This is confusing, and to be honest, Griffithds would be a better consultant/teacher. He comes highly recommended and has experience in the aerospace industry. He's practically a rocket scientist. I'm quite sure he's forgotten more than I know about math, the problem is how much does he remember? Remember his post admitting to brain flatulence? Not much to worry about on that score though, he can consult from home.
You know the bit about feeding the hungry - teach someone to farm and he can grow his own, or something like that? That was my teaching plan. Know any algebra? You're supposed to pass algebra before you take geometry. How can you solve an equation without algebra? I think you just push buttons without understanding and want someone to tell you which buttons to push? Know what an equivalency is - 2 sides of an equation? L = MD + OH L = 10" = 254mm.
254mm = pivot to spindle + overhang. L is your constant and you need 2 numbers that add to 254 for the other side of the equation. To find those numbers for any standard alignment go back to VE calculator and put in 254 for effective length. If that doesn't work find a 254mm arm in the database and click on the nulls. That will give the other numbers.
That's the best I can do. My specialty is solid geometry and my brain is farting like crazy. They told me I was filling in for Professor Timeltel. I thought he was an English Lit prof. I think I was conned. Did Timeltel retire? I don't know what's going on, but Griffithds is your man.
To re-enforce what Dover said regarding the DV tonearms, I had the experience of mounting a cartridge in my DV505 using Baerwald, which requires the cartridge to be twisted inward with respect to the long axis of the headshell. It was surprising to me that this did not sound good at all, using a cartridge with which I was quite familiar, and I hypothesized that having the cantilever arc at an angle to the vertical arc described by the arm wand was a possible cause of the distortion I heard. When I re-aligned the same cartridge using Stevenson or the DV recommended parameters, all was well. This is what I call circumstantial evidence, but it makes some sense. And I draw the conclusion that it is wisest to use the geometry for which the tonearm was designed, not necessarily one's own preferred geometry, when using typical pivoted tonearms with offset headshells and stylus overhang of the spindle.
I own an RS-A1. It is quite a weird gadget, not easy to set up but at the same time rather uncritical of P2S distance. It does sound surprisingly excellent with a wide variety of cartridges.
fleib: """ When you adopt a different alignment you're also changing effective length ... """
according with that sentence a tonearm designer first needs to know the pivot to spindle distance to determine the effective length on his tonearm design?
You said that I have to forget Löfgren papers but makes no sense to me because there is the overall foundation on tonearm alignment and from there comes all the know type of alignments as: Baerwald, Bauer, Pisha, Stevenson, etc..
So, please tell me why me or any one must do that?. Don't put examples of nothing and please give a specific answer because through this thread you never give a specific answer with an explanation of why: yes or why: not.
You are reluctant one and again to avoid the Löfgren papers and just post nothing that makes reference to it:
which are your reasons not to do it? what's wrong down there?
The 3 calculations on 3 different type of alignments ( through Löfgren original papers. ) I posted showed that on each calculation the PtS distance was a variable and different on each type of aligment.
In the Löfgren his equations ( and all the other know alignments posted here: B, P, B, S. ) starts with a knowed L ( effective length ) and from here comes all the alignment variables like the PtS one that in there comes from here:
M = L - d , where L is the knowed ( fix. ) effective length, d the calculated overhang and M the PtS distance.
Please don't just tell me that I'm wrong. Tell me why, give any explanation. This is not a contest as many gentlemans here I want to learn and if you are right then: good for all of us. This is all about.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
Btw, forgeret about that 505. It's not the main subject in what we are discussing. I repeat don't put examples just an explanation and please don't try ( again ) to change the subject taking a different " road ". Stay in the road!
Btw, I'm using the IEC ( not DIN. ) standard for the calculations in the original equations and through it the second solution in Stevenson ( first solution is similar as Löfgren A. ) calculated this null points:
60.325 and 117.417 , not the ones by VE not even if I choose DIN standard. Remember that accuracy is the name of the game: cero tolerance, but the point is that of these null points but about that effective length subject.
There are many internet calculators that as VE ones does not stay in focus.
The original equations are simple ones and by algebra we can do whatever we want ( I already said it 3-4 times in the thread. ).
If we want the PtS distance fixed then we can do it or if we want that the overhang stay the same with different alignments we can do it. That's what shows all those calculators and create several misunderstood like the fleib one.
Fleib, I already did my job years ago because I had that misunderstood too. Now you need to do your job too just from the begining with the foundation of all this subject: Löfgren explanation and equations and I'm sure you will understand it or can confirm your point.
Repeat, forgeret about manipulations of those equations or new dedicated alignments because no one can hear the level distortions changes in an accurate alignment set up.
Dover, Interesting comment. The straight zero offset arms available today address lateral torsional forces. The ViV Rigid Float requires little or no antiskate as a result of this. Skating force is increased by cart offset, that is lateral cantilever angular difference between pointing at the pivot and pointing at offset angle. There is still skating because the cantilever is tangent to the groove at only one null point on an underhung arm, but it's said to be insignificant.
The only arm I've heard of that addressed lateral and vertical torsion is RS Labs. That one had the pivot elevated so the zero lateral offset cantilever would also approximately be vertical zero offset.
The trade off with alignment error is significant, but reviewers say it's worth the trade. Ironically, they also say the shorter version sounds better. This is supposed to be because reduction of length also reduces arm resonances, or something like that. It's conjecture but makes sense.
My skepticism with distortion figures and alignment error correlations isn't based on these arms. There is necessarily a phase difference between channels with lack of tangency, but it seems to me any other distortion would be cantilever and tip dependent.
The reason some people find those zero offset arms sound good, is reduction of torsional forces on the cantilever. Do linear arms solve these problems? If and only if, they can maintain tangency at all times and otherwise behave as a proper tonearm Re: mass, friction, etc.
Fleib, Don't you mean the other way round. If an arm has zero offset vertical bearings then there will be torsional force on the cantilever when the arm moves up and down. If the tonearm has offset vertical bearings that match the cartridge offset, then there will be no torsional force on the cantilever when the arm goes up and down, however there will be additional torsional force on the bearings with an increase in bearing friction in the vertical bearings. Your comments on the Dynavector make sense, the arm comes with a jig for the cartridge which if followed the cartridge ends up dead straight in the headshell with the vertical bearings aligned. If Baerwald A is used in the Dynavector then the cartridge is offset from the vertical bearings and torsional force is introduced into the cantilever. This is probably not a good thing in such a short arm.
Someone is not paying attention. Dynavector nulls were just posted and they are not Stevenson. The inner null is close to it, but outer null is Loefgren B. How does this change tangency and alignment error?
Click on the nulls to find out. Scroll down to the columns headed with the stock and standard alignments. Notice the odd relationships between various alignments with regard to eff length, offset, and overhang.
What remains constant? Pivot to spindle = mounting distance.
The equation is L = MD + OH. Where MD is mounting distance and OH is overhang. If L remains constant, then the values of MD and OH change for different alignments, but still total to equal L.
Forget about Loefgren's papers, it's all right there. You're confusing yourself trying to reinvent the tonearm. If you start doing the math for different nulls, your arm will be released around the year 2127, or the 2nd of never.
What interests me is the DV total alignment error - looks pretty good. They say "Distortion figures are calculated from samples of tracking error in the modulated groove area." Samples? Sounds like smoke and eyewash. Distortion analyzer?
Dear friends: """ What don’t you understand? Effective length = pivot to spindle (mounting distance) + overhang (spindle to stylus). If mounting distance remains constant, then effective length (L) must change with a different alignment. """
that’s a common misunderstood on cartridge/tonearm alignment set up that I had for many many years and that many of us still have.
When a tonearm designer/manufacturer begin with his design he choose the tonearm effective length not the pivot to spindle distance. He does not care on this distance because tell him nothing. In the other side knowing the tonearm effective lenght in his design all the other alignment/set up parameters comes trhough the choosed alignment calculations it does not matters if he choosed Baerwald, Löfgren B or Stevenson.
The designer choose only one alignment type not 2-3 of them and even if he choosed ( this never happens. ) 2-3 diferent alignmets the effective length stay the same because is the foundation of his design. As I said no designer choose pivot to spindle distance as foundation for his tonearm design, has no sense to do it.
In the example I posted here on a 10" tonearm ( effective length. ) all the main parameters/variables were diferent for Baerwald, Löfgren and Stevenson. Here I write again he calculations:
OVERHANG: B L S
16.224 16.681 13.43
Off.ANGLE: 21.586 21.586 19.912
Pivot-Spindle: 237.78 237.32 240.57
and the Null Points calculated are diferent too:
inner null p.: 65.998 70.285
outer null p.: 120.991 116.604
this NP. is where on each kind of alignment the tracking error and distortion is cero in a pivot tonearm and the foundation to have a graphic/diagram for the overall distortions through the LP surface recorded grooves.
The data input in the equations for any of those alignments are:
innermost groove distance, outermost groove distance ( here we can choose between standards as: DIN, IEC or we can choose a different values. ) and EFFECTIVE LENGTH ( the one and only choosed by the tonearm designer ).
Through those 3 data inputs the equations gives :
Overhang, offset angle, null points and pivot to spindle distance. These are the variables in those standard alignment types.
If for a more easy task we just change the overhang and offset angle with out change too the pivot to spindle distance what we have are higher distortions in ALL the recorded LP surface!!!
So we have to respect the equations in those white papers and do not do it the other way around as fleib suggest. Looks the same but it’s not and what any one of you can do it to confirm it is to make your own calculations where you will find out those higher distortions figures I’m talking about.
Btw, a friend of mine that I respect and who owns like me the Dynavector 505 told me that he prefers in his tonearm the Stevenson alignment recomended by the manufacturer when my self do not like S. alignment and prefer Löfgren.
If in that 505 we try to make the set up with Löfgren alignment with out change in the pivot to spindle distance then because the distortions goes higher we dislike what we hear. Maybe my Agoner friend just don’t change the tonearm mount position in his TT.
Many of us make changes in the overhang/offset angle with out any change in the pivot to spindle distance and is a mistake. I understand that we do or did not because we can’t make new drills in the plinth every time we make those kind of changes. Now, if we choose not to change the PtS distance we can do it but distortions are different, as I said in other posts we can manipulate the original equations and makes whatever we want it but this is not the subject here. I’m talking of be orthodox in that regard.
As I recomend to fleib maybe is time to read again the original Löfgren papers and not like fleib just posting with out read it and not only read it but understand it.
Now, maybe with some of you the differences on what I hear with some cartridges is because the alignment set up difference.
The message here is that we don’t need to change the alignment we have but to reset it and make again the set up with " cero tolerances ". Accuracy is the critical main parameter we must care during the set up because minimal errors as 0.5mm ( overhang ) represent not only where the distortions will happen but that those distoritons goes higher too.
I think that Baerwald or Löfgren is more than enough the alignment we need.
The message to all toearm designers/manufacturers is that take their main responsability to give usthe accurate and user friendly JIGs to set up their each one tonearm design. Responsability that today almost all just don’t give the vital importance for we customers and music lover audiophiles.
Regards and enjoy the music, R.
PS: I'm sharing my opinion here to learn and not to achieve that " I have the reason and you are wrong ". Nothing like that far away from that sentence. I can be wrong and I would like to know if really I'm wrong and if yes then I hope that any one of you be so kind to tell me in a wide explanation why I'm wrong. That's all, always I'm willing to learn and if necessary accept my mistakes. With out mistakes we just can't learn and grow up.
As long as we're talking alignments, here's a post from Audio Circle:
**Not sure if we talked about this on this forum - UNIDIN alignment is a legit alternate alignment. Nulls - 66.3, 112.5mm Here are more conventional nulls: Stevenson - 60.325, 117.42mm Baerwald - 66.0, 117.42mm Loefgren(B) - 70.3, 116.6mm
You can read something about this in Stereophile or Analog Planet and see the alignment error curves. It looks pretty good. I was playing with the numbers and what you won't read is that the alignment is nearly identical to Loefgren, but moved inward about 5mm. The distance between Loefgren nulls is 46.3mm. UNIDIN is 46.2mm.
Nice to get away from Agon. What'shisname is really a block head. Guess every forum has one. neo**
I wanted to have the 3 standard alignments posted so no one would have to look them up. Here's another:
**According to VE the nulls for the 507 II are 60.1 and 116.6mm. That puts the inner null next to Stevenson at the lead out, and the outer null is Loefgren. This should optimize the middle and end of the record.**
Many people dislike Stevenson alignment, but you have to admit it's the best at the end where the grooves are crowded and the tip gets pinched. Some people prefer it. That would include Peter Pritchard (ADC/Sonus). He also recommended a low frequency resonance of 6.5Hz. That would put the resonance as far away from the audio band as possible, just above warps. If someone has a big fat spherical stylus or inner groove problems, Stevenson comes to the rescue, especially with a cart that emphasizes "musicality" over detail.
No, this isn't about taste or practicality. This is about distortion. People use the terms alignment error and distortion interchangeably. That comes from Loefgren - his description. There's no denying the cantilever excites the generator and lack of tangency is undesirable, but what's the exact correlation? Does 2° of error correspond to 2% distortion, and what kind of distortion?
The reason some people find those zero offset arms sound good, is reduction of torsional forces on the cantilever. Do linear arms solve these problems? If and only if, they can maintain tangency at all times and otherwise behave as a proper tonearm Re: mass, friction, etc.
that Denon headshell was only an example but if you don't like it then you can use a low weight magnesium damped headshell by Audio Technica.
The subject here is not the headshell but that the EPA 100 takes heavy/low compliance cartridges with no problem and with lower distortions.
EPA 100 was a serious advance on tonearm engineering design and repeat that its exclusive damping mechanism is an achievment and permit almost to mount on it anything you want and the cartridge will performs with low distortions.
No, the 64/66 sounds " odd to me " ( as you said. ) because is a distortions generator and that's all. No not for me, I posted here " hundred " of times: I want to be nearest to the LP recording not away for with that ridiculous tonearms.
The EPA 100 effective mass is 22gr., has a removable universal headshell that if we use something like the Denon PL-5 ( 5grs. ) we can mount with out modifications cartridge weighting to 17grs and additional to all those tonearm characteristics it has the best damping mechanism I know in any tonearm till today.
Raul - if mounting a heavy low compliance cartridge like a Koetsu in a 5g rattly pressed tin headshell floats your boat, then good luck with it. This may go some way toward explaining some of your odd conclusions on cartridge evaluations, in particular MM vs MC comparisons. This explains why a FR64S with a solid headshell would sound odd to you, you would miss all the tinny distortions in your standard set up. Have you tried a plastic headshell in your FR - that may get you closer to the kind of distortions you like to hear.
Sorry, I gave you credit for being a little smarter than that, but you've proven me wrong. I wasn't planning to return to this thread and now I'm teaching remedial geometry.
**Dear fleib: Not really. Let that I try to explain all that. As you I 'm talking of standards alignments as both Loefgren A and B solutions ( Baerwald/Loefgren. **
I wasn't talking about Loefgren alignments.
**In those Loefgren equations the main target is to find out the precise offset angle and overhang with foundation/knowing the tonearm effective lenght ( L in the equtions. ) and radius of the Lp grooved surface ( most inner and outer LP groove recorded area. ). For difference between that L and the overhang the Loefgren solutions achieve the distance between tonearm pivot to TT spindle. The L does not change in those Loefgren standard solutions, WHAT CHANGED IS OFFSET ANGLE, PIVOT TO SPINDLE, AND OVERHANG VALUES.**
What don't you understand? Effective length = pivot to spindle (mounting distance) + overhang (spindle to stylus). If mounting distance remains constant, then effective length (L) must change with a different alignment.
The rest is nonsense. The Loefgren alignments are close in headshell length and angle, especially for arms longer than 235mm.
Dear dover: """ Rauls comments about the Technics EPA 100 are superfluous in this thread as it was never designed for heavy low compliance cartridges and in fact you have to modify the counterweight for heavier cartridges.... """
I respect your opinion trying to " disregard " my post.
Now, you say that was not designed for heavy/low compliance cartridges but its design characteristics does not confirm that.
The EPA 100 effective mass is 22gr., has a removable universal headshell that if we use something like the Denon PL-5 ( 5grs. ) we can mount with out modifications cartridge weighting to 17grs and additional to all those tonearm characteristics it has the best damping mechanism I know in any tonearm till today.
I owned 3 EPA 100 ( one of them the MK2. ), 1 EPA 250 and 1 EPA 500 and always mated very good all the cartridges with diferent weight and compliance. I still own two Technics tonearms.
In the other side I never had any single trouble with all those Technics tonearms at its ruby bearings and as Pryso I never had the opportunity to read any where in the net that kind of trouble with other that the Pryso one.
So, I can’t see why my post was " superfluous " as you said. Nver mind.
fleib: """
The only stipulation is mounting distance remains constant """
I ask you or gave my advise ( twice . ) that take a look again to the original Löfgren papers and I can see you did not and follow posting that kind of sentences that does not help. Why don't do that and share with us your findings and if not that be that way. I can't help about.
"""
I'm too busy now """.
OH ! I see that "
you're tenacious " too!! and that you don't want to help you . Fine with me.
Anyway and with this I'm finish in this critical audio subject for any audiophile:
"""
Look to these real calculated numbers/values for a 10" tonearm using Baerwald and Lofgreen B alignments:
both cases the cartridge offset angle is the same: 21.586
the difference in cartridge overhang in between is only 0.457 mm """
that is what I posted to don_c55 where that overhang diference came from the individual Baerwald/Löfgren calculations:
Baerwald: 16.224 and Löfgren: 16.681
what fleib said is that the tonearm mounting distance in that 10" tonearm stay the same and only has to adjust the overhang.
Well, in those papers I'm talking about the equations solution, not only for Löfgren but for the other similar kind of alignments states this:
M= L - d where M is the pivot to spindle distance and d the overhang with L as effective lenght that was part of the input data in those equations and here for this particular 10" tonearm.
L is data input and M changes according the new calculated overhang (d) . The new tonearm mounting distance is:
237.78 for Baerwald and 237.32 for Löfgren. Mantaining same effective length.
As I said we can manipulate those original equations to leave M as data input or anything we wish but that is not the main subject here.
Btw, Stevenson calculated values are:
overhang: 13.43 and offset angle: 19.912° for that 10" tonearm.
Stevenson has two solutions as Löfgren the first one is similar to Löfgren A and the results here is his second solution, way diferent.
In the other side you can't embarrass me on that subject especialy when you don't participated there. So, don't worry about, I'm not I have nothing for what there or any where I could have some kind of that " embarrass ".
You're fond of calling other people ignorant, questioning their sensibilities and powers of discernment, yet your ignorance is so great you're like a child who skipped school. Look what you've done. Nearly a day has passed and the conversation has stopped except for Raul trying to prove his superior knowledge level. I was trying to give you an easy out, but you're tenacious like a bull dog ripping someone's pant leg.
You quoted a sentence out of context. Ironically, that sentence happens to be correct. The only stipulation is mounting distance remains constant. I thought that was obvious from the context which wasn't about either of the Loefgren alignments, so put it to bed. You don't know what you're talking about. Now you have an explanation why a table S/N can be 92dB or whatever and you're saying I'm dogmatic? Ignorante!
What happened at Lenco Heaven? There's a wild story on your MM/MI thread about your emotional problems and cat photos etc. I don't want to embarrass you, but you make it impossible not to.
I think you need a time out from here to straighten out emotions. Why don't you take a break and find someone to talk to? I won't be back to this thread. I'm too busy now and can read about any further developments. I was serious when I said you have many friends here and I don't think people will hold it against you.
fleib: Don't try to create some kind of confusion in the people for what I posted here ( what I posted in other thread has additional explanation that because you are so dogmatic can't turn your " face " and only stay staright. ).
In reference to what I posted here my advise is that you read again the original Löfgren works/solutions on tonearm/cartridge alignment. It's useless to follow the analysis with you till you read that original white papers where you could find out that the effective lenght does not change because is one of the fixed numbers/value in the equations solution ( we can change it if we want it but this is not the main subject. ) As I said what Löfgren equations solutions ( and Baerwald/Bauer/Pisha/Stevenson/et. ) gives are: offset angle, overhang, pivot to spindle distance ( by diference. ) and null points not effective lenght.
We can manipulate those equations to achieve a tonearm effective lenght but that again is not the subject on what I'm refering to. I'm talking of the Löfgren original work.
Dear fleib: Not really. Let that I try to explain all that. As you I 'm talking of standards alignments as both Loefgren A and B solutions ( Baerwald/Loefgren. ):
in the midel of the 20's a gentleman named Wilson was ( I think. ) the one that for the first time " touched " the overall tonearm alignment importance, that's all I know about Mr. Wilson and I don't know if he gaves any mathematic solutions. In 1938 Loefgren was who goes in deep about and who gaves those both solutions/equations ( Baerwald solution comes latter and " even " the Loefgren A solution. ). In those Loefgren equations the main target is to find out the precise offset angle and overhang with foundation/knowing the tonearm effective lenght ( L in the equtions. ) and radius of the Lp grooved surface ( most inner and outer LP groove recorded area. ). For difference between that L and the overhang the Loefgren solutions achieve the distance between tonearm pivot to TT spindle. The L does not change in those Loefgren standard solutions, what changed is the offset angle, pivot to spindle and overhang values.
Now, we can do whatever we want with those equations but this is not the subject. Even we can have " hundred " of additional alignment solutions using Excel and other mahematics tools ( we can change the effective lenght in a tonearm through several kind of solutions and we can have different offset angles, overhang and null points too but is useless to do it. ) but again this is not the subject here.
My point explained through the example I posted with two different alignment solution for the same tonearm where does not change the effective lenght, I don't want that the effective lenght changed. What I said is that if with the same tonearm we use two diferent alignment set up and in both alignments we have a " perfect " accuracy no one can detect the diferences in distortion levels because are so tiny and changing groove after groove that makes even tiny those distortion levels. Imposible to detect it.
So, for me is futile/useless try to make changes where those distortions happen in the recorded LP surface becaus we can't detect it and as I posted maybe we can " imagine " that hear the differences it because we " want " to hear differences when in reality we can't. Just think how can you detect 0.15% of that kind of distortion and through each single LP groove that 0.15% goes down to 0.04% and up to 0.21%. Can you?
IMHO we don't have to worry about with tonearm alignment solution choosed the tonearm manufacturer or any one of us what we must worried is that the manufacturer gaves us his tonearm with a " perfect accurate " JIG to make with extremely precision/cero tolerance the tonearm set up in these 3 parameters:
- accurate set up distance from our each one TT spindle to Tonearm pivot. If this distance has not 100% of accuracy then it does not matters the accuracy level in the other set up parameters.
- accurate cartridge offset angle and
- accurate cartridge set up overhang.
That's all. No one needs or has to invent the " black thread ".
Ain't it, though. I like to pretend it isn't happening to me. So, back to tonearms, in deference to Wrm: I don't think the 7045 competes with an FR64S or 66S, except where the latter two may have too high an effective mass in relation to the (high) compliance of the desired cartridge, and except for those who are in Raul's camp vis a vis the FR tonearms. (I have formed no opinion yet, since my FR64S is to be used with my TT101. Thus the FR64S is a lady in waiting.) I still plan to take a look at how various tonearms resonate, once I find appropriate software to do this on a Mac. Apparently there are several good choices for spectrum analysis programs, if one is using a PC.
It has been a while since I have visited Halcros thread. You last post sort of flipped on the light bulb sort of to speak! I had honestly forgot that it was you that had that troublesome table that has been the main topic of discussion for the last several months. There’s no price you can put on that nightmare, but if all it cost you in a finanicial sense was $1000 then you still got a good deal. Ever heard the term ’brain fart’! I think I just experienced one in regards to your input on the ’living dangerously thread’! (grin) Please forgive my lapse of memory! It's hell getting old! Regards,
Don (Griffiths), Evidently you don't follow Halcro's thread on "living dangerously" with DD turntables. If you did, you would know that I have had a heck of a time with my TT101 and after more than a year (maybe more than 2 years) I have only recently made some headway in making it work reliably. (That's the key word, "reliably".) In the process, I have spent nearly $1000, but that's probably a fair price for a refurbished TT101. So, I didn't really "score" after all, but I went into it with eyes wide open.
Dear don_c55: You have to think that in any tonearm alignment set up choice the distortion levels change ( up and down against where null points are. ) at each recorded groove or minimum playback tonearm movement and no one can detect those so small changing distortion levels.
The people that like to change null points or pivot to spindle tonearm distance can´t detect those distortion levels.
Some people say that with the new tonearm set up things sounds better and this " fact " cab be for two mainly reasons:
that the first set up was non accurate as the new set up or that even that both set up were accurate the person wants to hear the improvement because he think that with the new set up distortions levels gone down but this " gone down " is so tiny/insignificant that in reality can’t be detected!
"""" When you adopt a different alignment you're also changing effective length and offset angle. """"
This kind of sentences speaks of that audiophile mediocrity/low knowledge level where we " audiophiles " are " swiming " through.
You posted something critical: accuracy, and this is the name of the game with overall tonearm/set up. Anything else is only " imagination " not facts.
The thought of receiving a TT-101 with plinth and JVC 7045 for the price the arm alone is either a gift from 'heaven' ( if all is working), or a gift from 'hell' ( if the TT is not). (grin) Have you been following Halcro thread in regards to the TT-101? BTW: Don't underestimate the value of that plinth either! They are getting hard to find. The thought 'you scored' with that purchase is a bit of an understatement! Regards,
Thanks, Don. When I bought the QL10 (which equals a TT101+7045+plinth), the seller admitted that the TT101 was "broken", and I got the whole shebang for about what I estimated to be the value of the 7045 alone. I was planning on selling the 7045 to recoup my cost and then spending whatever it took to fix the TT101. However, I have yet to sell the 7045. Nor have I ever used it. I will give it a try. Just for the record, I would never completely trust the markings on the adjuster for VTF on a tonearm that allows for dynamic application of VTF. I ALWAYS use a digital scale to verify. With my DV505, I use the dynamic VTF to get to about half of the needed VTF (according to my trusty digital scale), then I apply the remainder by adjusting the counter-wt. I really should try the DV501, which is a little jewel. It was gifted to me by a dear friend.
My dear friend and comrade Nandric and I have had running arguments in regards to my love for the JVC 7045. He also has one that he hasn't found time to mount. He's in love with his FR-64. It was actually him that convinced me that perhaps I should at least try a heavier arm with my FR's. I must admit, I was also surprised at just how good the JVC is. In many regards, it is quite similar to the Lustre. Both have VTF adjustment on the fly. Both, removal head shells. Both have exceptional bearings. The only short coming that they both have is lack of azimuth adjustment. I solved that problem by the exclusive use of the Sumiko/Jelco head shells. LP/tunes also carries the same head shell but calls it the Supreme. In regards to the use of magnetics for the VTF on the Lustre. I still prefer the old fashion method. Balance the arm, then move the counterweights for VTF using a digital scale for verification. I've been doing it that way for damn near 50 years so I am too old to be changing! (grin) I like the magnetic concept but 'blind trust comes into play with that design and considering the arms age, well, I just don't trust 'trust'! (grin) As far as effective mass? I wish I knew. I did the typical search but found nothing definitive. Only speculation. Considering how it performed in regards to my 'high compliance/low compliance cartridges, I tend to believe it is on the lighter side. The arm assembly has stainless steel parts, but the arm tube is of an aluminum mix. Mix of 'what' would be an interesting discovery. This would explain the lack of corrosion that you and I expected to see. I also though it was stainless but discovered this aluminum mix statement somewhere in regards to its arm tube. My TT-81 came without arm. I had a spare Graham 2.2 and had thought about mounting it on the TT-81 but what I really wanted was a arm with a removable head shell. The Graham has removal arm wands. Those wands were $800 a piece new, $400 used when you could find someone willing to sell one. Thanks to the M/M thread, I have more cartridges than I care to admit and to place each of them in their own arm wand would of forced me to sell my house and give the profits to Bob Graham. (grin) I did a search to determine what others were using with that table and to see what was recommended by JVC. That 7045 was/is JVC's top arm and considering it was 'the' arm during the legendary production run of both the TT-81 and the TT-101, I went looking for one. Just so happens that 'Foxtan' had a good one available so I bought it. I now consider that an even better decision than the actual purchase of the TT-81. Lewm, you are wondering how much do I really like the JVC 7045. Let me put it to you this way. And I am being quite honest when I state this. I am considering selling my Graham 2.2 and mounting the JVC 7045 in its place on the VPI Aries table. Those two tables (the VPI Aries and the JVC TT-81) would have excellent arms on each of them with removable head shells. This would allow the mounting of low compliant cartridges to high complaint cartridges when ever I wanted. No arm changing required. No 'wondering' if a higher mass or lower mass arm would be a better match. Performance wise, I would loose nothing. All three of the mentioned arms are 5 star arms in my opinion. But I gain in versatility. The biggest problem in all of this is the selling of the Graham. to do this is to me like selling my beloved dog to a stranger! It is going to be a tough thing to do. I'm the original owner and have had that arm for many years. The selling of the dog I couldn't do. But selling the Graham? I definitely leaning that way! Regards,
Don, I acquired a Victor 7045 as part of the deal when I bought my TT101, in the context of a QL10 ensemble (including plinth). I have never yet listened to the 7045 but you've got my attention. I am surprised to learn that it is low to medium in effective mass, as it appears to me to be made of stainless, but if it is indeed aluminum, I can understand that it might not be so heavy as effective mass goes. (I would expect alu to oxidize over time, yet my 7045 is as bright and shiny as my FR64S.) Do you know the actual effective mass? Also, as regards the application of VTF, I understand that Raul advocates not using magnetics for this, passive only. What do you guys favor? On my DV505, I use about 50-50 dynamic vs passive, if those are the terms for the two options. I've got a Dynavector DV501, which was less expensive than the 505 when new partly because it lacks dynamic VTF and a few other doodads found on the 505, yet I understand that many favor it over the 505, and even the 507.
The Lustre has 4 high precision radial bearings which are super grind-finished. There are 2 vertical and 2 horizontal. What makes then really unique is that they are spaced farther apart than usual for a tone arm for better angle accuracy. Yes, advertiser hype but interesting concept none the less The real proof is in the pudding! In my opinion, the arm does deliver and lives up to its hype! V/E has the original manual listed for downloading and also an advertising blub/report that goes into more detail. Worth reading if interested. Regards,
Dover, you said "most enthusiasts of the EPA100 replace the ruby bearings with silicone nitride or ceramic balls".
I found that very interesting since it is the first time I've seen it stated. I have an EPA 100 so I read anything I find mentioning it.
After buying my EPA I discovered the bearings were out of adjustment and some of the rubies may have been damaged. I happened to have mine repaired with silicone nitride, just as you suggested, because I was told they were better than the original rubies.
Anyway, that was reassuring, even if I never read any reference to it previously.
If 30cu is extremely high, what's the Sonus Blue/Gold or some ADC models @ 50cu, the ultimate high? I thought that description pertained to something else altogether. (chuckle)
I haven't done all of these measurements, but a 103 is about 12cu @ 10Hz. The AT95 or any Clearaudio MM is 15cu, and the 440/150 is 18cu. To confuse things further, Ortofon publishes lateral cu.
You mentioned something about the 801 bearings. Could you be more specific?
I would not consider a 30cu as 'pretty high'. That is 'extremely high'! (grin) Like I said, all depends on where you want to draw the line between what you consider 'high' and what you consider 'low'. To me, under 10 is low. Yes, Dover. If you only look at the numbers, then the FR's would be considered low. But not if they (the Japanese), were using @100 Hz for measurement. It would make those FR's closer to 12cu if they used the 10Hz method. I am still at a loss as to why the Sonus works so well on the Lustre. I was actually worried about mounting it on the high mass Lustre. It's not like I could easily go out and find a replacement stylus for it if I happened to destroy the suspension by using it on this 'high mass' arm. I did make an armboard just for the Lustre so I can quite easily swap the Lustre for the JVC 7045. I left the original armboard from the TT-81 attached to the JVC 7045 and I will leave the new armboard attached to the Lustre. Even left the phono cables attached to each (2ft. Signal Cable Silver Resolution). So remove 4 arm board screws, and do the quick swap. Piece of cake! (grin) This way I can continue to use the JVC 7045 for cartridges like the Sonus. That is if I can ever pull myself away from those FR's. (grin) Regards,
Our posts crossed. There is no conversion between 10Hz cu and 100Hz. 100Hz cu is a measure of tracking ability at 100Hz, not compliance. We've converted some AT dynamic cu by measuring resonant frequency on known arms, and have a sliding conversion scale, but it doesn't always hold true, especially at the extremes.
VTF might give a better idea and better yet a test record accurate even for an individual sample of a cart model.
Better look out guys, this is getting interesting and you know what that means.....
The FR7 isn't high cu either. A 981 @ 30cu is pretty high, work on the 801? Maybe some med/high cu?
Maybe there's something about steel, like a mass/ rigidity combo, which boosts arm performance. I don't mind a little mod to adapt an arm. We do it routinely with carts - glue a stylus, pot a 103, etc. but an arm is held to a higher standard. I have a titanium arm which needs a little extra damping. So what? I like the arm, it's a keeper as far as I'm concerned.
Speaking of standards, an arm is designed with a particular alignment geometry. When mounted at specified distance with mfg. alignment, the plane of the cantilever points directly at the pivot or the intersection of the pivots. To set up or align an arm in some other manner is to defeat the design unless it's coincidental. When you adopt a different alignment you're also changing effective length and offset angle.
To call the FR’s or my Ikeda a ’high compliance’ cartridge will depend upon where you draw the line between what you consider ’high’ and what you consider ’low’. If you throw in the mix ’medium compliance’ everything changes again. My problem with cartridges manufactured in Japan in this regard is the not knowing at what Hz the published spec’s. were done at. Many of the Japanese publishes their dynamic compliance specifications relative to 100Hz and not at 10 Hz which is commonly used in the Western World. This would produce a different outcome in regards to the actual number presented. VE states the Dynamic Compliance at 7x10-6cu/Dyne. Is that at 100Hz? 10Hz? I have also run 'high compliance cartridges with my unipivot Graham with no issues. It is considered a medium mass arm. The JVC 7045 is considered a light mass arm. The Lustre 801 is considered a heavy mass arm. My FR’s and the Ikeda preforms better on the heavier Lustre than on the light JVC. I deducted from all this, that the products I own that have been produced by Ikeda-san are of the ’higher compliance types’. I am not a ’numbers’ kind of guy. I use my ears. They preformed better on the higher mass arm than they did on the light mass arm so I have mounted the higher mass arm on my TT-81. I do not consider it a better arm than the JVC 7045. Just better suited for certain cartridges. I also have very low compliance cartridges. A Sonus Dimension 5 being one of them. It also sound great on the heavy mass Lustre so go figure? Like I said, I prefer to use my ears that stated numbers! Regards,
griffithds I am not sure why you call the Ikeda & FR7 high compliance. I have had 2 Ikedas - they are very low compliance. My experience with the Lustre 801 was excellent results with a Koetsu Black back in the day - very seamless sound, smooth and grain free. Isamu Ikeda does not recommend unipivots with his Ikeda cantilever less cartridges but I have run mine in my Naim Aro with no tracking issues at all.
Rauls comments about the Technics EPA 100 are superfluous in this thread as it was never designed for heavy low compliance cartridges and in fact you have to modify the counterweight for heavier cartridges. Notwithstanding ruby bearings are very brittle and most enthusiasts of the EPA100 replace the ruby bearings with silicone nitride or ceramic balls. I would not buy a second hand EPA 100 without budgeting for the bearings to be replaced.
To use the Lustre, the operator is not aware of it being regarded as a heavy arm. It does not look like a heavy arm but the arm tube 'is' Stainless Steel where as the Grahams are Aluminum or Ceramic and the JVC's are also of Aluminum mix. The Lustre also has some priority designed wire damping done inside of the arm tube and a unique bearing pivot design also. There are many things in regards to the Lustre that was not the norm for a tone arm so too state that "
the magnetic/dynamic application of tracking force - dynamic VTF w/o mechanical liability" as being 'the' cause and effect would be just conjecture on my part. As you are aware, the arms performance is the combination of many different aspects of its design. I do not in any way want to 'short change' the JVC 7045. But my high compliance cartridges seem to have better bass control when they were mounted on the Lustre. I only own a few of those but one of them is a favorite. It is the Ikeda 9C III (no cantilever). I also have a couple of the high compliant FR-7's, one being the 'fz' (another favorite). The difference between the arms is suttle but once you know that they sound better on a certain arm, it is hard to enjoy them when you do not have that arm installed. I have a spare (rebuilt) TT-81 that I did my best to come up with a place that I could place a 3rd turntable so that I could leave the JVC 7045 in place, but short of knocking down and re-configuring a wall, I am at a lost as how to get it in a position to actually use. I'm sure you are aware of space constraints with all those turntables/arms that you own! (grin) Regards,
Thanks for the answer. It's quite interesting, glad I asked. The 801 is the heaviest of the three, yet performs better with hi cu carts. I would guess this is due to the magnetic/dynamic application of tracking force - dynamic VTF w/o mechanical liability. Would you concur?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
