Dear Dertonarm: The original FR manufacturer numbers are totally wrong, these people IMHO wants only that the numbers appears in easy way for the customers but with out real care on the accuracy to Stevenson IEC solution and with no care on distortions. The original numbers: 245/230/15 and 21.5° don't match with any known geometry solution it does not matters changes in the input data for those calculations, makes no sense.
The " new " parameters for Stevenson IEC are better and the ones for Löfgren A/Baerwald ( that I posted to Halcro. ) are exactly the ones for this solution.
It is not true that the parameters you give Halcro that match Stevenson has lower distortions and this any one can confirm through VE calculations where we can see and " read " the diagrams/chart/graphics with the result on Stevenson/Baerwald/Löfgren curves.
Stevenson only gives a lower distortion at the inner grooves with a higher distortions all over the remaining 90% of vthe LP recorded area.
IMHO you have a misunderstood in this subject, please check not only the Dennes papers but the graphics on the curves through VE calculations.
Btw, Halcro obviously that a re-set in VTF is in order. I only want to insist that the reset on VTA/SRA and Azymuth is not only a must but critical to any comparison: accuracy in this set up parameters is a must ( desired. ) to have.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: Please show the graphics where any one can attest what you are writing.
Taking " your " numbers ( I'm not against your approach or your numbers, I'm only questioning your statement of lower overall distortions over Löfgren A/Baerwald or LÖfgren B that till this moment you don't prove it in anyway. ) and like you say " even " with VE tools this is what we have ( graphics on the VE site. ):
I repeat that the pivot to spindle distance is 231.5mm and overhang 14.5mm ( as you stated and Halcro " running ". ), well for these numbers could fulfil we need to move a little the most inner-groove distance ( we have to select " custom " and introduce this input data in the VE calculator instead IEC or DIN. ) as follows:
for Baerwald: that distance must be: 53.82mm, this fulfil those numbers and the calculator gives it with an offset angle value: 20.967°
for Löfgren B: that distance must be: 52.39mm and in this case the VE calculator set the offset angle at 20.967°
for Stevenson: the distance must be: 59.305 ( Between IEC and DIN numbers. In the other cases the distance is sligthly lower than those standards. ) where the calculations fulfil the PTS and overhang stated with an offset angle: 20.967°.
Any one can confirm this and can confirm through the garphics not only where Baerwald or Löfgren has the lowest distortions but that that 66% of " lower distortions " from your numbers ( that like it or not are almost Stevenson. ) does not exist even that you states we can " see it through VE ".
Again: where are the graphics where any one of us can confirm what you said it? where? where?, well maybe your " body " and marketing manager could shows here one of those great pictures with those unknow graphics: could you Syntax?, I assume that your " boss/master " already shared with you that information or is that you are like a few persons that: " take it with out ask ".
As I said it I'm not against your approach and I don't want to know the foundation of that approach what we need is to see those graphics where any one can see and confirm what you posted here and that's all.
My statement is that it does not matters what you change the Baerwald/Löfgren equations are not only the only one equations out there but gives the best solutions ( are optimized solutions by mathematics and based in each criterion used. I already explained in deep somewhere in the thread.) for lower overall distortions. If some persons like " this or that " is other " game " and been a subjective one has no " weight " on this pure Objective subject because 2+2 is still 4.
Instead of following " creating " different confusion levels and even if you don't " win " nothing try to help all the people ( me in and Syntax included. ) that's reading the thread and show those graphics. Could you? , everyone is waiting for.
The other subject is that if it's true that your approach/equations can be confirmed/viewed by those graphics then maybe not only works with FR one but could works with any other tonearm and if all these is true and confirmed then all of us ( I'm sure ) IMHO will give you our in deep appreciation for that!
Btw, what you don't know because " you don't find any white papers about this in the web " is that " Graeme Dennes along the VE people had a meeting in Mars ( last year ) with the greats and better scientifics from Jupiter to analize this critical cartridge/tonearm geometry set up and the conclusions of this meeting you can read it on the VE site where they shared all the information with all of us.
" So this is the latest " technology " to cartridge/tonearm right and knowed geometry set up solution/equations.
I don't know why you was not invited because some of those " Japanese and Germans that participated on that meetings you talked where there. ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear T_bone: I'm confuse about your numbers.
In this link there is the calculations with graphics for 245mm EL:
www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator.php?mv=&l=e&ev=245&i=i&c1=60.325&o=i&c2=&cal=1&submit=calculate
and don't shows your numbers. What am I missing here? before I go for your other numbers.
Could you guide me through VE calculator? which the link?, thank you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Or the links for your calculations if are different from the VE tools.
Thank you again.
Raul. |
Dear T_bone: Re-reading your post I found out those offset angles: 20.325/20.574 that I don't take in count ( I use the ones that gives the " natural " calculations, not forced ones. ) due that I use the VE calculator instead the comparator tool.
But I'm still missing something because this link calculations/graphics don't shows your numbers even that the input data comes from your post:
www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_comparator.php?m_el=246&m_oh=14.5&m_oa=20.325&compare=i&submit=calculate
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear T-bone: According with Nandric those FR numbers comes from: 1984 German Magazine 'Das Ohr' that I can't find it on the net to read how comes the numbers.
I
Btw, I'm still waiting what I ask you before. Thank you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
T_bone: because the last link using the FR numbers with the offset angle you states still shows different distortions numbers to the ones you posted.
Why is this?, I assume you have the answer. Thank you.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear T_bone: Yes, I'm using the VE comparator IEC and DIN too for a fixed pivot to spindle distance.
IMHO we need at least one calculation data that be the same on all and any calculations, this data is: 231.5mm pivot to spindle that's is what states DT ( btw, Nandric posted that all those DT numbers comes from that magazine. I can't be sure because I don't find that German magazine from 1984. It suppose that the reviewers made and change those FR manufacturer parameters. ) and if you see and read again that comparator VE link that you already sawed you can attest that that PTS distance of 231.5mm are common for Stevenson, Löfgren B, Löfgren A/Baerwald and obviously the custom one that's where that data comes and the one DT states.
In your posts you give the average distortion values for different set ups/calculations that obviously are different from the VE where exist that common PTS data for we can compare apples with apples because in that VE comparator the Stevenson, Baerwald and Löfgren B are the " answers " against the original ( DT numbers. ) parameters with the same tonearm pivot to spindle distance.
Said all that that average distortion values are:
IEC ( OA: 20.325° ): Original/DT 0.421%, Baerwald: 0.387 and Löfgren B: 0.347.
Same OA but DIN: original 0.43%, Baerwald: =.43% and Löfgren B: 0.387%
In no one of this calculations the Original has lower overall distortions. You and any one can see/read the graphics on all those calculations to see the each one behavior's curves.
IEC ( with OA: 20.574° ): original 0.419%, Baerwald 0.387% and Löfgren B 0.347°.
DIN shows: original 0.421%, Baerwald 0.43° and Löfgren 0.387°. Only with DIN standard and only to Baerwald the original is slightly better.
Now, what could tell us all these calculations?, IMHO what some way or the other we already posted here: we can change input data and set up parameters and distortions levels change for the better or worst but even that the Löfgren A and B solutions has the best overall " answer " .
T_bone, I never states that there are no trade offs in any set up geometry approach as a fact it is this ( that exist always trade offs. ) what I suppoted and I don't think I'm supporting " absolutes " because that " absolutes " has no trade offs.
I still " trust "/support and like the Löfgren A and B solutions as the ones with very good compromises for any data we introduce in the calculations. Of course that if we introduce the wrong data then we have a wrong results.
I don't know what you think that for make comparisons at least one data must be common to all calculations/approaches: I support this single common data for comparisons.
Thank you for your time and information because help me to be aware where " things " comes and why your numbers are a little different from the VE ones that I taked to support my opinion.
I can't understand why DT don't disclosed 50 posts before along that 1984 German magazyne where I understand the whole FR information/numbers comes.
Thank you again.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Nandric: Thank you, yes are the same numbers we are talking about.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Der T_bone: The same happen ( original with higher distortions. ) if the common data is EL ( 246mm ) instead PTS one in either IEC or DIN standards.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Pryso: +++++ " I do continue now to wonder if Dennesen considered other alignment calculations and rejected them, or if he simple accepted Baerwald because it was the most well known? " +++++
IMHO the precise and true answer only Dennesen could have it but I think that this could been take it in count for that Dennesen designer:
Löfgren A/Baerwald is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking error at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. This seems to me a good overall compromise.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear T_bone: I hope that with this post I can finish my intervention on this regard.
IMHO all these numbers/calculations for geometry cartridge/tonearm set up is in many ways something " academic " and very informative for the best part.
I already posted but maybe you or other persons don't remember:
++++++ " But I don't finish yet, we have to take in count too the LP characteristics and characteristics on was is recorded there: off-center LP hole, waves all over the LP, different recorded velocities at different areas in the LP surface, thickness of the LP, resonance of the LP build material, etc, etc..
These LP characteristics has an influence too in the cartridge quality performance. " ++++++
all our discussion on the subject about numbers are on static cartridge/tonearm status with no single sound in our ears coming from the speakers.
All those distortion level numbers prevail on dynamic cartridge/tonearm/LP motion/playback? , IMHO did not.
Now, imagine just for a moment what happen when an audiophile likes to be anal about SRA/Azymuth/VTF ( that I insist IMHO are a little more critical and important that that geometry set up for the " Mercurys ". ) set up on motion/playback and he changed all or one of these parameters with any single recording he is listening ( for whatever reasons you could think. ).
Any single change on SRA/VTF ( between other changes in set up cartridge parameters as LP off-center hole or LP waves/non-flat surface, etc, etc. ) change the position of the cartridge stylus tip and if he/we want to stay 100% accurate with the set up cartridge/tonearm numbers calculated he need to re-set this geometry set up each time he makes changes on those other cartridge set up parameters!!!!!, " crazy " don't you think?. Whom will take care about and why?.
As some one posted here: " we are to enjoy listening music " and not for changing ones and again the geometry set up cartridge/tonearm each time we change SRA/AZ/VTF with new calculations!!
That's why I said all that is in some ways: academic and informative.
That's why almost all of us made cartridge SRA/Azymuth/VTF set up by " ears " and this means on: motion/playback status.
We can´t have " absolute " control in our beloved extremely imperfect analog world named: LP. Each one of us according each one priorities and knowledge level made and make the best we " have on hand ".
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Genesis168: +++++ " Numbers and numbers don't matter. " +++++
this is not what I try to explain in my last post. Your statement is to " dramatic " for say the least.
IMHO " numbers " always matter if you know where and how matters and its importance level ( your skills to interpret/translate what numbers are saying. ): where numbers makes " the differences "?, when you have the answers to this question you will understand the importance of numbers.
Of course that are " numbers " and " numbers ", some makes a difference, some did not and some are informative or just academic.
As an examples: we need numbers to make the cartridge/tonearm set up ( overhang or pivot to spindle distance. ), sensitivity/efficiency speaker level, RIAA eq. curve deviations, current power capacity on amplifiers, damping factor, room/speaker set up, etc, etc.
With out this kind of " numbers " we can't make/take and decide from different alternatives for the better.
Till today I still support that if we want to improve the quality performance level in our each one audio system one of the best way to go is: lowering distortions ( every kind ) in every audio link in the audio system chain.
In some of the audio links the " numbers " ( for accuracy levels, frequency range, THD, IMD, deviations, etc, etc. ) help a lot to decide what to do and you know what: our ears heard it.
Of course that " numbers " does not matters if what we are hearing is a poor and low quality level of sound.
I'm like you on the main importance with the quality level in the sound we listen through our systems and all my " ideas " and " adventures " that I take in my system ( changes. ) have as only target: improve its quality performance level and this IMHO you can't do it with out subjects as: accuracy and " numbers ".
I'm for a good sound in my ears but over this I always prefer a good accurate and " non-distortions " sound reproduction that only " good sound ".
IMHO I think that we should not be on these extremes: only sound or only numbers.
How good are our skills/knowledge levels to make " the right " blend/mixture on those extremes is what will define the quality level in each one audio home system.
Of course that as you posted: " We are free to try and make up our minds. ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Nandric: I don't have yet the right and precise answers to:
+++++ " our capability to ignore the noise " ++++
but a priori IMHO I think it is a phsycoacoustic subject and the enormous capacity that our brain has to adapt over time to " continuos " stimulations " like LP sound and its enormous capacity for " discriminaty " what we want to discriminate.
In the other side IMHO we music lover´s always enjoy music it does not matters the source quality level.
In other thread I posted that I'm preparing the information for a new thread with may " new " experiences on a very interesting subject that by coincidence one way or the other take in count this noise subject you are talking about. I hope to post that thread next week.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Geoch: The thread's subject is not mainly focused on that kind of noise " that mantain you on that deeper hole " but something more related to improve that " hole ", each one system " hole ".
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Geoch: IMHO Syntax is a marketing manager with a way different knowledge-ignorance level that many of us.
I agree with you and I can add:
Baerwald and Löfgren B approaches differ only in the overhang distance ( that changed the PTS distance with the same EL and offset angle. ), this overhang difference is around 0.4mm that's a lot longer than the Syntax sample/pictures ( as always great photos. ). Both set up geometry approaches are good ones with in theory a little different kind of trade-offs.
Even if everything is " perfect " and the cantilever aligned, re-set of SRA/Azymuth set up, PTS distance, etc, etc. all these we did it in static status when the cartridge stylus hit the LP on playback all we know what happen ( we already discussed in this thread. ) through the imperfect LP medium.
How this Syntax could hear any difference ( if any. ) in quality performance that he can attest was because the cartridge stylus position changed 0.1 mm?, IMHO and with all respect makes no sense other than commercial corruption.
I think that a good product like this protractor does not needs this kind of " help ".
As you said, the protractor makes things more easy and this sole characteristic is important.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: My mistake. That 15mm on overhang is not what help me but the distance between the cartridge stylus and the rear part on the headshell that if I remember is 50mm on some of my tonearms.
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: I don't think you noted yet. Several of my hedashell removable tonearms design have the manufacturer overhang spec at 15mm, I choosed on porpose due so many tests cartridge/tonearm combinations I have. This similar overhang characteristic help me to mount with almost none change any cartridge in any of those tonearms.
Yes, this is not exactly what you are talking about but an idea that could help.
Btw, now that you and other people are so in " deep " about cartridge/tonearm set up through accurate protractors seems to me adequate for you and every one that want to " explore " and learn on the subject to make a simple ( no money need it.! ) experiment:
- in one or two of your cartridge/tonearm combinations move the cartridge 1mm forward ( no protractor need it. ) and mantain the same cartrridge/headshell offset angle. After re-set the VTF and VTA/SRA and if you want azymuth and antiskate ( not need it for the experiment but if you want to be more " even " with today set-up. ) push the playback " button " and listen for a while.
After that and if you have the time and patience move the cartridge an additional 1mm forward and the same process but moving the cartridge 1mm and 2mm rearward.
Compare what you listened on those four different set ups against each to other and against what you are listening in your rigth now set ups.
IMHO this is a un-expected ( because the quality performance ) experiences where we could learn what is happening down " there ", I mean on playback against no-play status.
All of you that decide to " explore " in this " jungle " will be appreciated what you experienced.
Thank you in advance.
Regrads and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Peterayer: Please forgeret about distortions for a moment and suppose that you made ( for whatever reason, never mind here. ) a " mistake " and mounted a cartridge 1mm-2mm forward/rearward of what an accurate protarctor asked.
As you said it you will heard/hear a cartridge that was not aligned properly and this is the subject of this simple " experiment ".
What could you listen or find out? well that's what this test will tell you.
Other than that non-properly alignment nothing that you share with us can have a " negative " argument by any of us. The important subject is what you heard: what you like it, what you don't like it, if you could live with these trade-offs and what do you thing overall against the properly alignment.
IMHO this kind of tests are interesting ones and I have to say that by " accident " ( my errors. ) I heard many times cartridges that were mounted with no properly alignment. I will share my experiences about along yours.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Peterayer: That is only an " exercise " that you could do it when appropriate to you.
Regrads and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
