Dear Feathed: I can't understand your last post and maybe I'm wrong but making a quick revision on my original tonearm jigs to mount the tonearm in a TT in all cases that distance determine the exactly position of the tonearm in the TT. Am I missing something here?, please explain about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: I read again and again this inner groove distortion subject even if the alignment/set-up of the TT/tonearm/cartridge is on target.
Why is that? what happen? because I don't " suffer " on that problem and IMHO the linear tracking tonearms are not the answer.
Other than the alignment IMHO there are at least ( between other factors ) four things that can cause the " trouble ": a un-matched tonearm-cartridge combination, a tonearm bearing of low quality, a cartridge suspension out of specs or a combination of these " factors ". Of course that depend on each record quality and what is recorded on each recording.
Btw, the two null points alignment against the arc protractor are the same because those two null points are on the " arc " and IMHO if anyone align on two points that cross on an arc then it is a " perfect " align on that " arc ".
Now, the alignment between Baerwald or Lofgren is less than 1mm, which one is correct?: both, could anyone hear the differences? not anyone system but certainly you could hear it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Thom mackris: +++++ " who can achieve the same audible results with a two point protractor as I can with an arc protractor is ....." +++++
any one can do it if the two null points protractor is " works "/designed in almost perfect way and if what you are comparing against the complete arc protractor is the same: Baerwald vs Baerwald or Loefgren vs Loefgren or whatever.
This adjustements is not " black magic ", it is almost easy maybe the subject is that many people do not have the right know-how/exprience about, I hope that you can do it in the same way than Frank and many other people.
I don't know why so many put this subject arc protractor like something " unique " or sophisticated, because IMHO it is not.
Maybe I'm missing something but IMHO it is " crazy " to me that the only way ( almost ) to go is through an arc protractor when a two point one is an " arc ", my God!
I think that the first real target to everyone of us is try to match the tonearm and the cartridge making a in deep research before making a choose about.
Like you say there are " thousands " of words on this thread subject when the main subjects/basis/foundation about tonearm/cartridge is a little not discuss in deep.
Anyway everyone is totally free to post anything on this open forum, that's the way things are and nothing wrong with that.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: There are two or three very interesting subjects ( that I experienced ) on what we are talking, let me to explain, example:
normally we have to align the cartridge cantilever and I find some cartridges that in static way its cantilever is not align with the cartridge body so I aligned not with the body but with the cantilever but guess what: that cartridge/cantilever when is running/dynamic state/way the cantilever is not mis-aligned from the cartridge body but it is aligned ( in " automatic " ) with the cartridge body, so I have ro re-align with the cartridge body: why is that/happen? I can't say it but it happen.
Other very important issue is that the two point protractors usually use the Baerwald/Lofgren parameters and the tonearm geometry parameters are different: VPI, Rega, Lustre, SAEC, Micro Seiki, Ikeda, etc, etc.
Why is that? are they wrong ?, certainly not IMHO those tonearm designers decide to choose different trade-offs against the Baerwald/Lofgren or other tonearm geometry parameters, so what happen when you re-align according to different geometry parameter through a different protractor like the one mentioned in this tread, easy it sounds different ( many say better, I don't agree totally with this. ).
I try several times/tonearms to go with different geometry parameters ( on the more orthodox " road ". ) and always likes me in the short time and till to know never in the long run, I always return to the manufacturer instructions/manual about.
I'm totally sure that those tonearms un-orthodox designers have a precise reasons of the why they do it in that way and IMHO everyone of them are just right and with al respect to everyone of you when you change those geometry parameters on the tonearm/cartridge alignment you are changing the designer " job/targets ", I don't do it anymore I try to follow the tonearm designer " feels ".
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Feathed: +++++ " It's so simple I just assumed everyone did this. " +++++
everyone that wants to change the effective tonearm length.
+++++ " You get the exact equivalent of a longer effective length tonearm. " +++++++
and a " little " different performance.
IMHO the designer tonearm voicing was taking in count that spindle to pivot spec along the overhang and " original " effective length.
How do you know what the tonearm designer intented through its original specs? IMHO it is not only the geometry tonearm parameters what define the tonearm performance. Nothing is perfect and has trade-offs: how do you know which trade-offs choose the tonearm designer?.
You can change those parameters but like I told you the performance will be different.
So, IMHO that spindle to pivot spec is still useful and necessary.
There are times where is important to preserv/guard a little respect for the designers.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Feathed: Normally who makes the drilling is the TT manufacturer or the tonearm manufacturer if the tonearm comes with the TT ( VPI, Avid, Rega, SME, and the like ).
Now, if we have to make the drilling normally too we leave 2-3mm for " to play " with the tonearm position in order to put on the precise position, at least in a fixed arm board, because in a round and with movement one like in the Micro Seiki or Acoustic Signature, I think Galibier and others to find out that precise tonearm position is extremely easy and there is no excuse not to do it, even for a non experienced person.
Yes, I'm with the tonearm design instructions and with the designer.
IMHO there is no reason why has to be in other way. I know that many people don't do that and send to build a dedicated protractor ( that several times ( almost always ) goes against the tonearm designer targets. ) or build by it self, I'm not in favor of any one of them ( hear things different not always means better ).
Well this is my opinion, I respect yours.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Pryso: +++++ " This is the first time I can recall anyone suggesting that overhang is arbitrary and can be set anyplace (i.e. at the end of the arm) at the user's discretion. " +++++
me either and the problem was/is that he never answer the " right " Dan question about the spindle to pivot distance. He say works with the DB protractor where you can't to measure any of those distances: effective length or spindle/pivot.
So everyone has to assume ( like you ) that the overhang and effective length were take it at " random " because there is no reference point taked about.
I think that maybe he has a misunderstood on the subject or needs an up-date but of course he can " drive " the road he choose it ( like it to us or not ) where he already has such " distortions " where only can have " great " sound around the lead out groove ( null pont ) due to its " odd " tonearm/cartridge set-up.
I'm with you, Halcro, Dan and Thom on the Feathed " argument ".
I always say that all of us ( in this forum ) have the opportunity to learn every single day from everyone: things are that we want it, a not always " easy " attitude.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Axel: I owned and own several Ortofon cartridges ( MM/MC ), normally are very good trackers I can't remember any single problem with any of them like the one you are having.
From my experiences on it the V maybe is not the best match for your heavy weight and almost high compliance Windfeld. I never try it this cartridge but other than an out of specs in the cartridge suspension mechanism or a mis-match with the V I can't see where is the problem " culprit " because you already try almost every " rule " about.
You can try that cartridge with other tonearm and that V with other cartridge and see what happen.
Btw, I read somewhere that in your system that cartridges needs over 1Kohm on load impedance, IMHO and through my experiences with other Ortofon LOMC ones 100 Ohms is more than enough and if yours needs over 1 Kohms I think that there is some " trouble " elsewhere in the audio chain because it is not normal to load so high a cartridge with an internal impedance so low like the 4 Ohms in that cartridge.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Axel: Yesterday an audio friend call me to meet one of his friends ( new person for me ) at this friend place.
Well, he has a SME-30 wth the V and Windfeld cartridge with around 250 hours and he loaded at 180 Ohms ( no SUT ). We were hearing dfferent recordings and can't hear any inner groove distortion.
He was running the V in its original dinamically way and I ask to run in static way and the performance improve a little, he was satisfied.
Then, we take that Windfeld and come to my place where we try it ( loaded at 100 Ohms with no SUT ) in four different tonearms ( IV, Lustre, AT 1503 and our own design . ) where in no one show the inner distortion.
Btw, the Windfeld performs better in any of the other tonearms ( like was my experiences with LOMC Ortofon cartridges. ), in the V/IV its performance is good but not at the same level than in the other tonearms ( We try with a Nagaoka magnesium headshell and with an aluminum one, the cartridge " prefers " the aluminum one. ).
This Ortofon cartridge is very good and in some ways similar to other Ortofon MC cartridges specially the MC 7500, I like it.
Regrds and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: Do you know why the tonearm denomination: 12", 10", 9", etc, etc? what those numbers means?
Well, as you all know is the tonearm effective length this is: the distance between the stylus and the center of the pivot/flucrum/bearing and IMHO this is the foundation of the tonearm calculations parameters.
When we want to design a tonearm ( between other things ) we first determine/think in those 12"-10"-9" numbers ( we are not thinking on overhang or pivot to spindle numbers. ) and is this " number " ( effective length + innermost/ outermost groove radius. ) the one that we introduce in the Baerwald/Loefgren/etc formula to obtain: overhang, offset angle, pivot to spindle distance and null points.
If we change the overhang ( like in the Graham example that " play " between Baerwald and Lofgren. ) alone then we are changing the " foundation " ( effective length ), so this practice is not correct, you can do it and you can do anything you want but that does not means is correct: is wrong.
Every time we change the " foundation " number ( effective length. ) change too the other tonearm parameters.
I'm not talking here if the sound likes you or not I'm only talking of what is right and what is wrong.
We can put an example using first Baerwald:
say 250mm on EL: offset angular, 21.949 degrees; overhang, 16.502mm; P to S, 233.50mm.
now 258mm on EL: offset angular, 21.235 degrees; overhang, 15.956mm; P to S, 242.04mm
Loefgren on 250mm: offset angular, 21.949 degrees; overhang, 16.967mm; P to S, 233.03mm
and in 258mm: offset angular, 21.235 degrees; overhang, 16.404mm; P to S, 241.60mm
Well, it seems to me that that tonearm effective length is in reality the foundation to calculate those critical tonerm parameters.
We have to take care on what we do because " sometimes " we achieve a different target that what we want.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: Anyone of you can corroborate what I posted here:
http://www.ispexperts.com/BaerwaldLofgren1.xls
Dertonarm: where can we corroborate what you posted?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: I'm not talking on the name of the tonearms model but real: 12",11", 10" or 9" ( inches ) effective length.
Regards and enjoy the music.
raul. |
Dear friends: I think that the Graham is a real 9"=228.60mm tonearm, well here are the results on Baerwald:
offset angular: 24.128 degrees; overhang: 18.173 mm and P to S: 210.43mm
Lofgren B.
offset angular: 24.128 degrees; overhang: 18.690mm and P to S: 209.91
As you can see the offset is the same and the other two parameters are different ( including the pivot to spindle distance. ) where the effective length is the same.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
If you can't take it ( the Baerwald/lofgren calculations ) on the link I posted please email me and I send to you.
Through this " page "/calculator you can " play " with your tonearm-cartridge set-up changing parameters in a " safe " and precise way.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: That " calculator " give us many interesting " numbers ", example: the average distortion in a 12" tonerm is 0.3105% and in a 10" is 0.3815%, do you think can we hear the difference?
You can find out that tracking distortion/tracking error at any place/groove position in the LP and can compare between different tonearm lengths where you can ask: can/could I detect those distortion differences? are there real advantages on long tonearms?
This is only an example, there are more information on the whole subject including null points calculations.
I hope you can have fun with it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: Please forget it what I ask you, I don't need that you corroborate nothing at all.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Friends: I don't want to make this dialogue something " personal ", what Dertonarm or I think or argue about it does not matters, everything on the subject are already " say it " many years ago and the best we can do is to read on it.
Lofgren/Baerwald formulas were develped to obtain the overhang and offser angle in tonearm to " control " the tracking distortions.
Well, in those equations ( overhang/offset angle ) the parameters that they take in count are: effective length ( R or L in the equations. ) and the inner/outer groove radius. These equations have its " foundation " in those parameters not on the pivot to spindle distance.
Like I already say it:the subject is not what you say or what I say but what is wrong and what is correct.
All of us ( anyone ) can read here a very interesting analysis on the whole subject where you can find almost everything, please go to the link and there make click on Download and for the specific equations and notations ( R and L: effective length. ) go to page 30-32:
http://www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4854
I have to say that this white paper is really learning for anyone and along with the very first link ( calculator ) that I posted we can " play " to obtain amazing information on the tonearms we own and with the LP we own, like I say amazing. Now many of us can/could understand the whole subject and its implications.
Like I say in my first post in this subject a tonearm designer start/begin choosing the tonearm effective length for the design and not with the tonearm pivot to spindle distance that is only a consequence when we aply the Lofgren/Baerwald equations.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
I'm sorry, you can start reading at page 29. Well, it is worth to read all!
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: This link that I take from other thread ( thank you Johnbrown. ) seems interesting too:
http://www.conradhoffman.com/chsw.htm
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: Yes, I read and posted in your thread.
I understand that almost all of us are committed to set-up that stylus in the position where make less overall " harm ", that's why those white papers and " calculator " are so useful for everyone.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: Now that we are here and that some of us are " playing " with the information there are one or two subjects that can/could help to understand what is happening or what we are listening when ( example ) we buy a new protractor ( any ) and now with the new stylus set-up everything goes " better " ( many times does not goes better but we think it did. ).
With the " calculator " ( extremely easy and informative. ) and everytime you change your tonearm effective length you can calculate the new tracking distortion ( % ), maybe/could be that what you like is higher distortion.
This is one point the other one is that when you change the tonearm effective length through an overhang change you are changing too the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency ( and change the tone in the sound reproduction. ) and is part of the " new " sound you are listening.
Maybe you can think that 2mm of cartridge movement is not important but it is due that you made that change where the cartridge weight makes more difference in that resonance frequency calculation: at the headshell/farest from the pivot tonearm.
Other factor that affects specially on the tonearm/cartridge tracking capacity is that moving mass change with the cartridge position.. I don't know if it is well say it but what I mean is that the tonearm and the tonearm pivot works more " comfortable " when " see " the cartridge weight/mass nearest to it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Peter: Your question IMHO has mre than one answer because there are mre than one factor involve.
If we take from the geometry point of view the 12" tonearm always will has advantage ( in theory ) over any other shorter tonearm. But unfortunately things are not so easy.
Looking to LOMC today cartridges the first " trouble " that we have is that the same cartridge, say a Titan i, will have a different resonance frequency with the SME 9" than with its " big brother ", this fact alone preclude a fair comparison ( and I'm not saying that the Titan is the best match for the tonearm, I take it only like an example. ) because that difference in the resonance frequency has its own " sound signature ".
Other subject that Dertonarm already point out: +++ the further away the cartridge is, the higher its influence on the mechanic resonance behaviour of the tonearm. +++++
and in my experience not only for the tonearm torsion resistance factor but depending on the tonearm build material, a 9" arm wand has a different " sound signature " than a 12" arm wand .
In the last three years that Guillermo and I been in our self tonearm designs we made ( and still do it. ) several and different tests and one of them was to have a shoot-out with the same cartridge, different ( same build material ) length on the arm wands, very near resonance frequencies between them ( due that we use different headshell weights ).
We do it with 9", 10", 11", 12" arm wands and we find that with the 9" is a clear overall advantage ( what we can hear )but betwen 10" and 12" seems to me that exist a " threshold "/land where it is extremly dificult to discern if there is a 12" advantage in the sound reproduction quality due to the stand alone length factor.
Our findings are very interesting because our propietary tonearm build material is almost neutral ( it does not have a " sound " ).
When the build material move away from " neutrality " then the differences are more " obvious ".
We are building a 14" and 16" other ones and we will see what happen, here the challenges are a little different.
I already posted on other thread that when you are in the audio item design ( any ) we learn a lot on the subject because we " live " every design day with the: why's, how's, where's and the like.
I hope to finish our tonearm project in the next three months.
What I learn/learned through the tonearm design help me to understand and learn too on the TT " behavior ", that's why in other thread I insist/push hard on TT build materials, this factor is definitive in tonearms and TTs quality performance more than any one can imagine.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: I'm sure that many of us some way or the other are understanding in a best way the whole tonearm subjects on geometry/set-up.
One additional point that I want to address is one in reference on what Axel posted:
+++++ " There seems to be a MAJOR discrepancy here with some other expert Forum members that maintain that the pivot to centre-pin distance is NOT of the ULTIMATE importance .... " +++++
that is a mis-understood because the pivot to spindle distance is very important parameter in the right and precise cartridge/tonearm set-up.
No one can change this distance free-will with out alter all the other tonearm parameters.
If any one of you analize the calculations examples that I posted you can see that that distance always change and not because a free-will decision but because is a consequence of the use of te Baerwald/Lofgren/others equations.
It is a incorrect/wrong practice ttry to compensate errors somewhere changing free-will the pivot to spindle distance or changing free-will the overhang. We have to remember here that if we change the effective length the equation calculations give us a new overhang/offset angle parameters and a new pivot to spindle distance.
We can't change " free " any of those parameters with out alter the others and we must know eactly the new parameters values. Many people that goes that wrong practice forgot all these and forgot that exist a new and different offset angle too.
Of course that any one can do it if they have its own tonearm geometry equations and if not IMHO those almost free-will changes give them higher distortions results, no doubt about.
Like Dertonarm say: here it is not what anyone of us " think "/feel/hear it is pure geometry/mathematics/physics where the best we can do is FOLLOW IT to be nearer to the recording.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
I'm wrong, what we are doing is an additional arm wand of 2cm over 12", that's all.
Raul. |
Dear Axel: Certainly the analog imperfect world " permit " that the people take decisions that are more oriented in " feelings " than in scientific care like the tonearm/cartridge set-up. Even those 0.1mm affect/provoke changes/distortions that are added at the whole audio system ones.
This kind of " behavior " unfortunately happen in every single link in the audio chain, sometimes by careless and sometimes by low know-how.
What is important to note is that many of those distortions are in our each one " hands " to make it lower if we take care on it not only in the whole system set-up but in the whole audio item system selection.
There are many many different subjects/factors that are "under " our each one control but even we don't know it.
Our each one audio learning curve is a " long road to home " journey where maybe the best way to help us is through an open attitude thinking that almost always exist a better " way " to make things to improve/grow-up.
I always try to think that the " best " is for coming.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Axel: Yes, I agree we have to accept the real world situation specially when things are out of our control or best effort.
What I mean ( sometimes I can't explain me in the precise way ) is that if we want to improve the quality perfomance of what we have we can do it ( right now ) and with out buying new audio items but only reexamine the set-up on each single ( big or tiny ) link in the audio chain, almost always ( when we do that ) we can find " land " to improve even with simple things like cleaning ( time to time ) the input/output connectors ( yes, IMHO these RCA/XLR connectors are a link in the audio chain. ) on the audio system. Anyway what I'm trying to say is that if we want to have better quality performance in our today audio system the best ( not the only ) way to go is try to put at minimum the whole audio system distortions ( any ).
The tonearm/cartridge set-up is a great example where we can put those distortions at minimum if we take care about and if don't here in this single link " things " could goes wrong and against to the " minimum distortion " target and against to be nearer to the recording.
But this is only an exampe and we have to put the same care/know-how in all the audio chain ( even that connectors cleaning exercise permit to lower distortions. ).
+++++ " Making any mistake here, will make it VERY hard - if not impossible - to fix that "bug" ever after. " +++++
well Dertonarm put the " finger where pained " ( IMHO he was a little " cheerful " when he say: very hard to fix after. ): IMHO and I agree with him anything we lost or add in an audio link we lost for ever and there is no way to recovery in the original status and with out adding other distortions/stages.
I posted several times that the free-will " compensation " whole/normal ( even a establisment. ) practice ( audiophiles, dealers, reviewers, etc, ) in audio to achieve a sound reproduction that we like through a selection of audio items to have " synergy " is one and incorrect form to be nearer to the recording ( well this is the target and if your target is different then this words are not for you. ), I say that " compensation " practice put us farest from the recording because trying to fix errors ( distortions ) adding other error/distortions can't IMHO give us the correct one.
We can read in any forum and commercial audio " pro " magazines things like this: " if your system is a little on the bright side then don't use this cartridge ", " if you want a warm sound then use this audio item instead the other ( any ) ".
This kind of attitude preclude ( in some ways ) the opportunity to improve in real manner the quality performance on our audio systems, let me to explain a little about trhough an example:
we buy or borrow a new audio item ( a very well regarded audio item almost a statement product. ) and then we connect/integrate in the audio system and hear it.
Normaly we will hear somethings that we like and somethings that we don't but almost never we try to make changes in the audio system ( everywhere ) to really integrate/set-up the new item where this new item ( statement product ) could really shine/show its overall quality.
We go to what we don't like it with out think that that new audio item quality performance maybe are showing the own audio system " anomalies " that have to fix it.
Then we say: " that product is good but not good enough for my audio system. " with out thinking that that product is a way/tool that can help us.
I remember very clear the Monaco TT review where the reviewer take that incorrect attitude, where he don't go in deep to find how good was that TT ( against the one he own. ) and this I think is an obligation of any reviewer. There are several similar examples.
So we have to reexamine ( the people that whant it. ) what we have with a non-compensation attitude.
IMHO we can't grow-up if we continue with that " compensation " attitude that we take it like false " synergy ".
Speak to try putting distortions at minimum means ( between other things ) try to find neutrality/accuracy elsewhere ( not analytic or cold sound ). I can asure you that when we work in this direction the rewards are enormeous and the music enjoy through our audio systems is so high that you can't imagine till you have it.
Axel the Azymuth subject is a critical one due to our " real world ", not only because the cartridge cantilever many times come off-out of place but the stylus are not perfect centered and at the right angle.
You have to think that all what all the ones that already posted here on the tonearm/cartridge subject " collapse " if we can't make Azymut changes.
IMHO a tonearm that does not permit Azymuth control/changes is an unfinished product, period.
Now, other than put some side-spacers in the headshell what you can do with your SME is to set-up the tonearm main column/rod with a little inclination either side you need: yes, you can do it.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear friends: IMHO we have to see/take ( everyone ans specially the tonearm builders. ) the tonearm like a " tool " a very precise tool that ( between other important subjects ) can/must give the opportunity to have a near perfect cartridge ( like a whole. ) alignment through its " facilities/infraestructure " .
Some ( fortunately only one or two ) tonearm builders say that they don't compromise the tonearm " rigidity " ( or the like ) for some of that cartridge alignment " facilities ".
I respect their opinions but I disagree with because I think the " source " is the cartridge not the tonearm ( the tonearm is " only " a tool/medium, a very important and critical one no doubt about but the main " star " is the cartridge. ) and IMHO the main target has to be a " perfect " cartridge alignment and from here they and us can do anything they and us want it.
This is my approach: I don't like ( through my experiences ) trade-offs on cartridge alingnment due to tonearm limitations, I prefer a trade-off in the tonearm device, at the end of the day nothing is perfect and certainly not the cartridges ( that's why we need those tonearm facilities. ), but the " success " or not comes through which and where we all accept trade-offs: where a trade-off made/makes less harm.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Maybe one of the " weird " tonearms ( on stylus alignment ) was the SAEC 506/30: the builder specs are 295mm on effective length with 9mm on overhang ( many trouble with some cartridges because to achieve 9mm there is almost no space in the SAEC headshell for the cartridge connector pind and the headshell wires. ), where the pivot to spindle distance is 286mm.
Well if we run Baerwald with that EL ( 295mm ) then we have an overhang of 13.8mm that give us a pivot to spindle distance of 281.2mm.
I wonder why SAEC made this compensation ( 5mm ) with the whole numbers where they choose the overhang of 9mm that was a pain for say the least?
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Other SAEC the WE8000/ST has 13mm with 302mm in EL as manufacturer specs but through Baerwald/Lofgren calculations we have: 13.5mm/13.9mm on overhang.
So I think that the SAEC owners could try those overhang calculations on it and in the the model 506/30: 13.8mm in overhang and 281.2mm on pivot to spindle distance.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dertonarm: Thank you.
regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Frank: Welcome a-board.
+++++ " What is the threshold for the audibility of tracing error related distorsions? "+++++
IMHO the " start " subject here is to define/identified first which are and how we hear those related tracing error distortions over the frequency range, certainly we can but is not an easy task especially if we want to define the threshold/limit.
There are some " difficulties/obstacles " other than system quality performance: the wide differences on the velocity recording through the LP, certainly the tracing error related distortions are different at outer grooves than at medium or inner grooves and we have to identified over the whole record, as you point out we have additional " problems " because of stylus shape, different tonearm/cartridge combinations could be more or less " tolerant " about, our ears and know-how level is important too, there is other subject: there are distortions that are incorrect but we like it ( many of us do not like low distortion sound, many people likes higher distortions/colorations. That's why we have to identified the incorrect distortions due to bad geometry tonearm/cartridge set-up. ), etc, etc
Of course that we can do it in a scientific way making measures and then listening till we find for specific grooves the limit to start/begin to hear " distortions " related to tracing error due to bad geometry set-up.
From my mistakes/errors ( like the one I posted elsewhere with the FR702. ) experiences and due that we live in an analog imperfect world it seems to me that that threshold is wider than what we imagine and cmplex to be absolute precise by ear only.
In the mid-time we have to take care on every single step on the tonearm/cartridge rigth and " precise " set-up.
The 90% of what the people ask in this forum, one way or the other, are related with distortions ( everywhere and any kind ) due to an incorrect audio items set-up.
I repeat again, we have to take care on a precise audio link set-up on the audio chain.
Anyway, I know that there are other tonearm designers that are reading this and other related threads, I hope they want and can joint us to share their thoughts and experiences about.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: The understanding and know-how in almost any analog audio subject is a matter of in which level/point of any audio subject learning curve we each one are.
In an open forum and due to different experiences at different level ( good or wrong ) is too dificult that everyone of us agree totally, specially in an almost " new " stylus set-up.
Through these related threads on the subject I'm still learning things that could help in my tonearm design.
In my last post I speak about my mistakes/errors on cartridge/tonearm set-up over the time, well the last one was during one of the tests on my tonearm design:
" changing and testing an arm wand ( different build material ) by error ( I'm testing on prototype unit ) the arm wand was out of position on " length " distance and I put the same headshell/cartridge ( that already was checked on overhang ) with out checking again the stylus position in the pro-tractor because I can't " see " my arm wand position error.
Let me tell you that the error was not 1mm but almost 4mm( maybe more, I did not measure. ): Well that arm wand build material was so good that even that the set-up was totally wrong the sound was even better than with the other different arm wand and this fact impede me ( at that time/moment ) to know about the mistake
When I take in count of the error I fix it and the performance improve. "
One tool that help to take in count that error was to hearing my record tracks that i use like references.
But this error help me to understand ( I'm not saying is correct ) about that threshold of hearing with that kind of errors and of the importance not only of a tonearm build material but about its whole quality.
There are many subjects around that make so complex the whole tonearm/cartridge set-up. What is true is that we must to be really precise/scientific on the tonearm/cartridge set-up to obtain in a " better/best " way what is in the recording.
Anyone can do what they think/want but that does not means that always is rigth, is different with different distortions that are usualy higher than follow an orthodox method.
Of course that everyone is free to take the Lofgren/Baerwald and others work and put on the trash can. We live in a " democratic "/free world.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
I know, it is not transferable, that was not my means on the subject but that only a few people make what it's suppose the best to do: physics, mechanics and geometry.
Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul. |
