Dear Halcro, to avoid any misleading info here, let me state that "my" calculation for the FR-64s gives - even with VE calculator ...;-) ..... - for the last 66% (i.e. 2/3 of the grooved area) of the record an average of 40% less distortion than Baerwald/Löfgren A IEC.
The maximum distortion with my calculation is in the lead-in groove where is is about level with Stevenson IEC.
That is about all what my calculation has in common with Stevenson........
The average "unweighted" distortion is right in between the figures of Löfgren A/Baerwald and Löfgren B.
Being very close to Löfgren B for most of the time and with approx. 45% less distortion compared to Löfgren B in the last 8-12 mm of a given record.
I "have" 5% lower "average" distortion compared to Löfgren A IEC/Baerwald and 20% less maximum distortion compared to Löfgren B (and his maximum is in the inner groove and my is at the lead-in groove).
I am perfectly fine if someone doesn't "like" my approach, but I know why I chose it and the results (if properly re-calculated in VE) do proof my idea even in simple graphs.
In any case - my approach is justified just as well as Löfgren's, Baerwald's or Stevenson's.
What a simple graph can't show, is that a distortion figure in the 1st third of a record is a completely different thing compared to the last third of the same record.
So finally I urge everybody to muse about the ever decreasing radius of a LP and what that means for the stereo-stylus.
This topic was discussed in the 1980ies and 1990ies in Germany and Japan (if I remember right ... in Japan even earlier) - the fact that you don't find any white papers about this in the web doesn't mean it wasn't done. There is a lot of information about many more core audio topics missing in the web.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Pryso, as D. read the Dennesen patent paper and measured the alignment spot distance to spindle center with a sliding caliper back in 1991, he knows since 20 years that the Dennesen follows Löfgren A/Baerwald IEC.
But it was certainly funny to notice that Dennesen was mistaken for Stevenson by some audiophiles. |
Dear all, "that Dennesen designer" was Francis G. Dennesen himself, together with Richard Wilson, Roy D. Toulan Jr. and Peter Madnick.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Pryso, no problem. My "question" was rather ironic and could easily lead to a misunderstanding. Mea culpa.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Nandric, dear T_bone, I discussed the FR-64s alignment parameters briefly with Klaus Renner (founder and editor of DAS OHR who sadly passed away while still in his thirties in 1991/2) in the mid-1980ies.
Based on initial proposals of A. Wagner/Munich.
In the early 1990ies - long before there was a VE-calculator on the web (heck - the web weren't really there back then (at least not in the sense we see it today)!!) - I calculated it a more in-deep and extensive.
On white sheets of paper with a pen, ruler and a pair of compasses ...... archaic today.
Anyway - I do not want to lecture anyone nor do I say that everyone has to follow my proposal or idea regarding the FR-64s tonearm.
It is a proposal, it suits my needs, allows the FR-64s to show it's virtues and to my knowledge has never failed to sonically impress a FR-64s-owner once he tried it.
When I give a proposal in audio is is based on my experience, proofed it's merit, is most likely at least worth a try and generally not a balloon.
That I like to go different ways should not disqualify me from the start.
So far and where I live this is a free world (so far and in some parts ...) and everyone can choose what he/she/it likes best.
Former Prussian king Friedrich "the great" put it very nicely more than 220 years ago: "Ein jeder werde selig nach seiner Facon!".
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Nandric, it was a really sad and dramatic end for Klaus Renner. And yes - since DAS OHR was literally his "baby", there was no way it outlasted it's father and founder. It was one of the very few magazines ever totally independent from advertising and self-financed.
I started with high-end in the late 1970ies when I was 16.
My first speakers were K + H studio broadcast monitor speakers (type OM I think ) with built-in V69a Telefunken tube-amplifiers bought used from Bavarian broadcast service in Munich.
My first encounter with serious turntables were Micro Seiki RX-5000, Mitch Cotter B and Platine Verdier serial # 1.
And my first "real" tonearm ...... FR-64s...;-) ..... a good friend since 1980.
Nice memories of days gone by.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Mesael, I am sorry, but the production costs of the UNI-Pro (linear drive especially) proofed pretty worse in the 1st production run.
Everything with the UNI-Pro is custom designed and many parts needs to be custom made.
Aside from the micrometer screw there are few parts we can actually use without alternation.
The 1st production had a special introduction price and sold out (35 units) within 2 weeks.
Furthermore the ever declining value of the US$ vs the EURO left no choice here but to raise the price and to separate the shipping costs.
We are confident however, that we can keep the price tag of the 2nd production run where it is now.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Mesael,
I do have calculated and designed a special UNI-template for the DaVinci 12". Aside from that, I would recommend Baerwald DIN and IEC as well as Löfgren DIN. That would cover about everything that can come across your way in terms of tonearms and pressings.
The UNI-Protractor's 2nd production run is already down to only 12 units left till sold out again.
Tonight I will introduce the UNI-scope here on Audiogon.
A superior option to magnify the cartridge's stylus on template by 20 - 200x with a special USB-microscope + macro-cold light + PC/MAC-view, photo storage and measurement option.
Including plug'n'play software for PC-Windows, MAC OS-X and Linux.
Furthermore ideal to judge wear or possible damage of stylus.
The UNI-P2S w/goniometer - an ultra precise mounting distance measurement instrument w/digital display and 1/100 mm accuracy will be introduced later this week.
Both are Audiogon exclusives and intended to further amplify the versatility and precision of the UNI-Pro.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Dev, not yet. Delayed by "real world business commitments" which consumed all my time ...;-) .... hope I can list it tonight.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear T_bone, just a short side-kick regarding the SME V.....
The offset angle of the headshell is pre-determined - sorry, not my idea, but the idea of the SME-deisgner(s). Given the fact that the mounting hole in the SME V is not really intended to allow anything like a "cartridge offset angle" (which in tonearm geometry not really exists at all - other as by wishful thinking), one can assume that it's designer did so by good reason.
As this mounting hole is (to the regret of many of it's owners past and present - including me ..) not really an elongated one either, the effective length is - at least in theory and designer's intention - pre-determined as well.
Setting the "cartridge offset angle" other than the offset angle of the tonearm's headshell does produce an additional break-down torque in the tonearm's static model - i.e. an additional force vector.
This is a plain mechanical fact - thanks to Isaac N. ...;-) ....
That additional break-down torque does of course influence the skating force.
Now is the SME V designed and constructed strictly following Löfgren A IEC (Baerwald)?
According to it's designer's it is.
According to it's technical parameters it is too.
Can one adapt the SME V to different alignments by moving its slide carriage? It was not intended to adapt to different alignments, but to different position of stylus relative to the mounting hole of the SME V.
The moving of the SME carriage does alter P2S and adapt's the effective length to different distances - in cartridges - between the mounting hole and the stylus.
Thus being able to retain the original Löfgren A IEC alignment is was calculated to.
Best,
D. |
Dear Jazzgene, dear Thuchan, dear Mesael, please allow me to briefly bring some "certainty" into this "vague" topic "anti-skating".
Gene and Thuchan - your observations regarding the VPI and SAEC tonearms are correct and backed by physic.
A brief summary of skating - it's whereabouts and effects in analog audio.
The notorious "skating force" is a result of the friction in the inner groove wall in conjunction - and this is the very important point now ! - with the offset angle of the pivot tonearm, the stylus' contact area's shape and the VTF.
It is an un-linear force by nature ( in a given set-up with a given cartridge and a singular given pivot tonearm ), as it is in conjunction with the position on the tangential error curve, the distance (= radius of groove wall) towards the inner label and the VTF.
The higher the VTF - the lower the skating force.
The longer the effective length of a given pivot tonearm - resulting in smaller offset angle - the lower the skating force.
The is no skating force in a tangential tonearm at all.
The friction on the inner groove wall is the result of the breakdown torque in a tonearm with an offset angle - a tangential tonearm (at least so far ..) has no offset angle.
If you encounter skating force in a tangential tonearm, then there is a serious misalignment of the tonearm and/or your turntable isn't leveled ( or there is a stream of air aiming at your tonearm .... ).
The breakdown torque in a pivot tonearm is an inevitable force. It can be addressed, but this is rarely done.
To compensate skating force in groove tracking - unlinear by nature - with a linear compensation is futile from the start. Futile in the sense that you fight one evil with another. In most 9" tonearms working with high compliance/low VTF cartridges you will need anti-skating, as this dreadful effect-force is very high here.
A tonearm with 12" (= small offset angle = lower breakdown torque) and with a low compliance cartridge with VTF of 2.5 gr and higher will most likely make anti-skating obsolete. In any case the resulting force is much smaller than with a 9" tonearm and a MM working with 0.8 to 1.5 gr VTF.
Then there are a few tonearm designs whose designers addressed the breakdown torque where it occurred and created tonearms with very low skating force applied to the stylus.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear George, that now is a question/comment worth being addressed.
The Talea, Schroeder, Clearaudio, SY and before them other tonearm designs ( Well Tempered et al) did use this smart trick for good reason.
By this design feature they avoid a pre-determined offset angle and thus are much easier to adapt to different alignments (calculations) without trade-offs due to the alternation of a "pre-determined" offset angle by a cartridge's body aligned in a different angle.
Circular bodies further reduce the problem, but - unless they follow the Ikeda or DECCA/London cantilever-less principle - there is still the line of the cantilever which should be in line with the offset angle.
If we have a cartridge body other than circular, the problem get's worse and if the cartridge's body and its cantilever aren't in line with the headshell's offset angle, we will get another force vector - i.e. a second breakdown torque and thus an alternation (not necessarily an increase!) of the skating force the tonearm can ( NOT must!) apply to the stylus/groove contact.
Before I address your statement regarding skating force and "anti-skating", please clarify what you think skating force is and where it comes from.
There are a very few pivot tonearms out there with apply practically zero skating force to the stylus.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Mesael, Morsiani is right.
He is right in that the skating force get's lower/less towards the inner label - i.e. decreases with decreasing groove radius.
As the contact area towards the inner groove wall decreases with decreasing radius, so does the friction - ergo the related skating force.
So Morsiani's concept does address the problem rather smart.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear T_bone,
a correct calculated alignment curve - much to my regret ... ;-) ... - has practically almost zero influence on the skating force. Unless the alignment curve is really VERY bad and raises to astronomic values.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear 04rdking, please read Jazzgene's full post - he did not like Loefgren B IEC (which is a standard calculation ) and will try the special VPI-template supplied with his UNI-Protractor and the Baerwald/Loefgren A instead. It is a choice of alignment-options - not of the alignment instrument.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear T_bone, yes, different alignments do alter the shape of the tracking error curve. However - it is always a bundle of effects which you can't actually isolate from each other and their dependences. The more "flat" a tracking error curve becomes, - it goes hand-in-hand with longer effective length and less offset angle. All these do influence the skating force. A zero offset angle (tonearm and cartridge body ..) would result in zero breakdown torque and thus any remaining skating would just be a function of friction due to contact area size. That would diminish even further with increased VTF. But even in a zero tracking error point - i.e. "null point" (strange blend of german and english here..;-) ... ) there is still the breakdown torque of the tonearm itself as the ever dominant source for skating.
You are right - a skating force "curve" across a record's groove will never be linear. Not with a pivot tonearm ( not even with the Thales).
The groove's radii change - so does the friction on the inner groove's wall. The tracking error decreases and 2 times and increases 2 times during the groove.
IMHO the most suitable way to handle this practically was always the same: - 12" tonearm w/low offset angle, low compliance cartridge with high VTF, lateral balanced pivot tonearm.
In other words - all measures taken to minimize breakdown torque so to minimize the evil at the source. Better to minimize skating to a value negligible then to fight a constant war with lots of friendly fire (anti-skating...) and no aspect to win.
That way of mine does of course limit the choice of cartridges and tonearms.
As my prime choices in both categories do however qualify in all points to this schemata I am kind of lucky..... ;-) ...
In any case - it is a path as suitable as some other.
It just suits my personal way of addressing problems at the source rather then seek painful cures for situations which have already evolved way past practical solutions.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Jazzgene, serving as the advocate of mechanics here let me briefly add that skating force does NOT increase with increased VTF.
Why so - since friction is of course direct related to pressure (here: VTF) ?
Because the friction increases on both groove walls - thus the relation of the side-wards pulling skating force to the downforce becomes less ( for those preferring the illustrative real-life picture: the resulting force of "your" sidewards pulling "wife" ( mine rather pulls on the same end of the rope as me .... ) becomes ever less dominant the higher the pressure of your "friend" nailing down the stylus .....).
Not my idea - it's simply mechanics here on our planet under the dreadful influence of gravity.
That's why in general skating force becomes negligible with very high VTF (talk about Ortofon and old SPU's running with 4 - 5 gr. VTF).
If you draw a force vector diagram it will nicely illustrate the point.
The skating force is a product of several sources.
However - the portion which starts it all comes from the breakdown torque of the offset angle.
That's the reason why pivot tonearms with full lateral balance ( direct addressing the static breakdown torque where it originates) and long effective length ( = smaller offset angle ) do display less skating force to start with. Now add higher VTF and the skating force - as a resulting force relative to forces aiming in different directions - becomes less and less with increased VTF.
In contrary this the reason why 9" tonearms working with low VTF and high compliance MMs do of course need anti-skating to address a problem VERY dominant in their particular situation.
Skating force in analog playback is diametral inverse to VTF.
No question about it, - anti-skating is desperately needed with shorter tonearms running with high compliance/low VTF cartridges. Here it resulting side-force is comparatively strong.
Influenced by many parameters all working to add to the skating force.
A longer effective length tonearm with ever smaller offset working with low compliance cartridge and high VTF is the exact opposite situation. Here all corresponding parameters do work to ever lessen the resulting side-force of skating.
BTW - how about starting a "skating - anti-skating"-thread ?
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Thuchan, .. and your RMA 309 features no antiskating device at all - for good reason.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Henry,
thank you for this throughout comprehensive and dedicated review.
Please allow me to briefly address the points of concern in your post/review about the UNI-Protractor.
* MA-505 / Grace 940.....
While both tonearms do indeed share the same overhang, mounting distance and effective length, they had different destinations from their designers.
Hence the two templates have very different null points.
Consequently the micrometer scale must show different values for these two templates too.
The Grace 940 follows an unusual alignment curve with VERY little distortion in the 2nd half of the record.
The MA-505 does follow (according to it's designers) rather the Stevenson DIN calculation. I have a bit "optimized" the MA505 calculation alignment, while letting the Grace 940's alignment stand as it is.
* ruler as P2S......
Well this was included as a handy tool ( and not mentioned in the initial Audiogon listing, but added as a "freebee" later. This is just intended to serve as a quick check whether the mounting distance is correct. I thought it to be a nice add-on, as it offers ( not common ...) 0.5mm scale.
Please note, that this can not be incorporated in the positioning arm, as the positioning arm does not aim direct over the spindle.
Since the UNI-Protractor was designed to offers precise alignment for all mounting distances, it's positioning arm can not aim direct over the spindle and must be variable too in it's distance to the spindle for different null-point-alignments ( please see Dennesen's original patent for further details and perfect explanation of the geometrical background ).
BTW - "my" P2S-tool - the UNI-P2S - will be introduced (finally) early next week.
This however will be much too much for most and is only a suitable tool for professionals who do set up tonearms on a daily/weekly basis and want the most precise.
* "full mirror" vs "frosted mirror"
That may be a matter of personal preferences - to my eyes the full mirror parallax is much better, as it allows for clear view of even the most minor declination (especially the helping lines left and right wing of the cantilever center line).
* geometry - name engraved on template
Those templates following any of the "standard 3" (Bearwald/Löfgren A, Löfgren B or Stevenson ) have been named so.
All the others do either follow their manufacturer's geometry or have been re-calculated by me. In those cases where I have recalculated a specific tonearm's alignment, I have named it so (i.e. FR-64s 231.5 D.B.) as this most often goes hand-in-hand with a mounting distance different from the manufacturer's specifications.
If my "correction" was rather marginal (i.e. MA-505) I have not left my signature.
Again - many thanks for your time and effort to supply this review !!
Still worth a smile IMHO is the fact that the birth of the UNI-Protractor was initially provoked by the deleted "FR-64s geometry" - thread of past early winter.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Thuchan, dear Downunder, originally I designed the UNI-Protractor as a tonearm alignment instrument. Measuring P2S is a matter of tonearm set-up and should be done prior to any alignment (usually you have to drill a hole in an armboard and so the mounting distance is kind of "pre-determined" before starting any alignment).
That's why P2S-measuring wasn't include din it's design. I now realize, that including the stainless steel metric ruler kind of woke up the wolves....
In any case - I will come up with an add-on to enable precise P2S measurement with the UNI-Protractor soon. This will NOT need any alternation to be done to UNI-Protractor and will come with a precise manual and installation instruction.
It will be a 5-minute plug'n'play device.
However - please accept my initial concept, that in my - sometimes strange and weird - mind, P2S was not an integral feature nor request in an alignment instrument for tonearms.
I still think that P2S is a part of tonearm set-up.
But - I will address it due to "public demand" ...;^) ....
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Thuchan, yes I have a schedule. The UNI-P2S will now come as a tool which can easily be incorporated with the UNI-Protractor (without any alternation !!) as well as stand alone as a precision mounting distance measurement instrument for it's own sake.
It will be introduced next week (i.e. first week of May ).
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Peterayer, there is an overhang gauge coming with the UNI-Protractor set to measure direct spindle to stylus distance (overhang).
The UNI-P2S will integrate into the UNI-Protractor as well as can be used as a stand-alone-device and allows precise spindle-to-pivot measurement.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Lewm, and this is exactly what the UNI-Protractor does ... ;-) ...
Seriously, the UNI-Protractor works in exactly the very same way as the Dennesen, - which I have worked with for 25 years.
This discussion started by the reviews of the uNI-Pro by Downunder and Halcro was about the actual measurement of the spindle to pivot (i.e. mounting distance or P2S) distance which is not incorporated into the UNI-Protractor's design.
In the UNI-Protractor's set a stainless steel metric ruler with 0.5mm scale was included as a handy tool for the owner to check the P2S if one is curious. This however raised the question why it wasn't incorporated into the positioning arm - just like in several other templates on the market. This of course can't be an option due to geometrical reasons.
Originally I had in mind a super-precise P2S measurement device as a stand alone tool. To me mounting distance was rather a different topic as alignment and a pre-determined condition on most turntables anyway. As the UNI-Pro - just as the Dennesen to Baerwald IEC (Löfgren A IEC) - aligns to a certain geometry independently of the mounting distance, I originally saw no need for measuring the mounting distance (P2S). Some owners of the UNI-Pro did however find this to be the one shortcoming and thus I want to address the issue with an optional P2S-tool which can be incorporated into the UNI-Pro at wish.
It will now come as a relatively inexpensive add-on which can also be used as a stand alone instrument.
An option like the UNI-Scope - not mandatory at all for perfect function nor alignment with the UNI-Pro.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Jazzgene, thank you for your impressions.
In the 2nd production run we will produce too a different version of the round reticle with black cross-hairs.
It will be much easier to read when spotting silver colored bearing houses.
This is available as an option side by side with the white engraved reticle that come with the UNI-Protractor ( which in contrary is easier to read on black tonearms).
Cheers,
D. |
Good point here. That's the reason for the micrometer driven linear stage carrying the positioning arm - it sets "Y" precisely for whatever null point the specific UNI-template sets.
My initial thoughts when designing the UNI-Pro were similar.
If a phono protractor really is universal, it must automatically align regardless of the given mounting distance.
In most cases the tonearm is already mounted when one starts to align the tonearm/cartridge. Then there are a good many situations where the P2S simply can't be altered by the user (pre-drilled mounting hole, fixed armboards/plinth).
The UNI-Pro does follow the smart idea of Francis Dennesen and adapts to whatever P2S a given tonearm is mounted.
Setting the mounting distance is done before aligning the tonearm. It is a "conditio" already set before starting the alignment.
If however the user does wish to align the given tonearm exactly to the geometry (especially the offset angle) the tonearm was designed with, then knowing the P2S and setting it precisely (IF possible ...) is important.
Important only if one wants to avoid an additional breakdown torque and thus another source for skating force in a pivot tonearm with a fixed offset cartridge mounting.
With tonarms like the Schroeder, Reed or Talea however we won't run into this problem at all.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Chris, I found my old files ... last setting with the ET 2.5 was 1.2 bar. Notes further mentioned "threshold - can't take more pressure due to material and problems with re-bouncing air stream".
Cheers,
D. |
Dear John_gordon, you don't really want me to tell you what additional breakdown torque is and why it does of course influence the skating force.
If you think skating force is just a phenomenon of friction and downforce - fine, certainly no problem with me.
If you muse about the model and draw yourself a good and precise force vector model of a pivot tonearm, you'll figure out.
I did suggest starting a "antiskating thread" - I didn't say I want to start it nor did I say I want to participate in it.
I have no questions regarding skating force in tonearms.
Regarding the UNI-Protractor and it's "universal" use.
Apparently you haven't worked with it so far and haven't understand it's principle either. Otherwise none of the comments in your last two posts would have been made.
You won't find a pivot tonearm on this planet which you can't align with the UNI-Protractor to best possible performance and any desired tangential curve.
If you think you can do better - go ahead design it.
So far your comments have shown little more than poor judgement, a fairly high aggression and very little understanding of the subject.
I welcome your attempt to put your name on the wall again and to prepare the road for yourself for a soon-to-be return to the audio market.
No problem with me - as far as I am concerned you are certainly welcome.
I might react to a post by you from time to time only, but so far very few actually did ask for an answer or a comment. Most were simply lacking content and seriousness. |
Hi Chris,
last topic first .... yes, there is also an UNI-template for tangential tonearms.
1) "We" was referring to the audiophile community - including me.
Kind of universal - in the sense of "we, the people" - i.e. not a club nor a circle of friends, but all audiophiles in the past 4 decades.
2) With mechanical issues I meant that tangential tonearms do ( with various intensity however ) put the suspension of a cartridge's cantilever to considerable stress. Even in a servo controlled tangential tonearm there first has to be a declination from the tangential right angle to move the tonearm.
It is not an apparent immediate issue, rather a long term problem.
I worked with tangential tonearms for 11 years.
There were and are cartridges which are mechanically better suited to withstand the mechanical stress ( especially Supex SDX-1000, original small body ZYX) and a great many which are not.
I didn't really did run into "problems" with neither the ET2, ET 2.5, Air Tangent 2B, Air Tangent Reference nor Goldmund T3F.
I all had them on my turntable(s) and they all did perform quite well and some showed potential for great sound.
I used them with high tech air supply ( Jun Air "Troll") and adjustable pressure and air volume.
The ET 2.5 still today is a best buy.
If mounted with the right cartridge ( low body weight, solid suspension ) and if you do not ask for the last punch, dynamic, air, color and detail in the lower 2 registers of the audio frequency band.
The ET 2.5 improves considerably with increased air pressure up to a certain limit. It does deliver very good bass with a lot of "body" - but not quite the quality I seek.
It is a very good tangential tonearm and if I were looking today for a tonearm in the $1k to $2.5k range, it would still be high on my list.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Chris,
my ET 2 was mounted first on the big Le Tallec tt (modified) and later on the Apolyt (450 lbs chassis, 100 lbs composite platter on radial/axial air bearing, 2 Hz air suspension frequency of whole turntable).
The ET 2.5 was mounted on the Apolyt only.
I worked mainly - as far as I recall - with 0.4 to 0.6 bar.
In american psi this means 6 to 8 psi approximately.
This was read down at the Apolyt's control board.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Chris, my last post just crossed with your answer - indeed, the bearing of the ET 2.5 can take much higher pressure. I found my tonearm files with the remarks about the ET 2.5 and my last settings were around 1.0 to 1.1 bar - which is, as you mentioned too, about 16/17 psi. Beyond that the re-bouncing airstream and material instability did downgrade the ET 2.5's performance.
Thanks, Chris - the sales on the UNI-Pro exceeded my expectations indeed.
The 2nd production run sold out again.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Thuchan, the full 2nd production run of the UNI-Protractor was just collected by the shipping service. I wanted to have this on it's way first before actually introducing the new UNI-P2S.
The UNI-P2S will finally be introduced and in stock by mid next week. Around the same time when you'll get your special balanced multi-line-to-power amp switch unit ...;-) .....
Stay tuned and enjoy the Munich High-End show tomorrow.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Jazzgene, the "black" reticule proofed much more difficult to produce in equal quality than estimated. This is not laser etched, but has to be printed. We finally got a perfect inspection sample this week and will get the full production run next week.
Best,
D. |
Dear T_bone, dear Wrm57, let me add some technical parameters to the discussion.
The UNI-IEC features zero points at 116.39 and 67.44 mm radius (very close to what T_bone once named "Dert67" ... ;-) ...).
After radius approx. 117, this alignment has approx. 20 % less tracking distortion due to tangential error then Baerwald IEC and is very similar to Baerwald curve after radius 66 mm.
A very suitable alignment if most of the records played are made past 1982 and feature rather long wax/lead out groove.
UNI-DIN features zero points at 109.52 and 63.49 and is ideal suited for stereo records made in the early days with short lead out grooves/grooved area running close to the label.
Both alignments to pay attention to certain aspects of stereo stylus with decreasing radius and concentrate the focus of minimized tracking distortion on the last 2/3 of the groove.
The long awaited UNI-P2S will finally (sic ...) be introduced next week. It proofed much more tricky to integrate it's function with the UNI-Protractor, but finally I succeeded and will bring something rather unique in both - function and precision.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Ecir38, yes - the UNI-P2S is a stand-alone-device.
It features 0.05 mm accuracy and can measure mounting distance up to 15" or 38 cm. It has some unique features of it's own.
The UNI-P2S nevertheless can be used in close conjunction with the UNI-Protractor and offers then direct measurement of mounting distance with 0.05 mm accuracy during alignment of cartridge.
In other words - you can read down the exact mounting distance every moment during actually aligning your cartridge.
It was quite some work to design the P2S so that it now meets the universal approach I was longing for.
I will introduce the UNI-P2S next week and it will ready for order and immediate shipment by end of July 2011.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Sonofjim, right now the UNI-Protractor is readily available and ships within 8 working days following order.
Due to very good sales in the 1st and 2nd full production run we decided to produce some "overstock" and can supply limited quantities now much faster than before.
If you are interested, I will gladly send you the full pictured 24-page manual as PDF-file to get a comprehensive impression about the functions and options the UNI-Protractor does offer.
Best regards,
Daniel |
