Dear Downunder, you are right. Baerwald IEC isn't always and a priori the best calculation curve for every tonearm. It is good for a 9" tonearm designed according to Baerwald IEC ( that is it's off-set angle ) and tracking mostly records cut following IEC standard ( means: long lead-out groove ).
There are good reasons why there are other calculation curves too.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Jazzgene, indeed - usually Yip uses Löfgren A/Baerwald for his MINTlp protractors.
Cheers,
D |
Dear Jazzgene, good point here ! On black colored finish tonearms the UNI-Pro's reticle will be best as it is, but I will pick up your suggestion and will have a batch of reticles w/black hairlines made in 2nd production run. I will provide a reticle with black hairline once the 2nd production run is ready to ship, which will be end first week May.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Raul, dear all, thank you very much indeed for your kind comments and support. The 1st production run of 25 units has started yesterday.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Curio, the UNI-Protector positioning arm has a round reticle locator - that way you can locate the exact pivot center of the tonearm by optical "locking in" the outer boundaries of the round bearing house.
That is done without touching the Graham at all.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Geoch, hardly any of the japanese tonearm designs of the 1970ies or 1980ies had Baerwald IEC calculation curve in mind. People look up Baerwald IEC distortion curve readings on VE and since they deliver the lowest reading at the 3 distortion peaks, some do automatically conclude this is the best for every tonearm.
It is not - for obvious reasons.
For your SAEC 308 SX may I suggest you try Löfgren B DIN instead.
It will give you much better sonic results, as the SAEX's geometry matches far better with Löfgren B DIN or Stevenson.
Baerwald IEC is great for most modern 9" tonearms AND when playing mostly modern records cut with a long lead-out groove (i.e. the area on the record actually engraved with recorded sound is rather small ).
If you have a tonearm with an effective length anywhere between standard 9" and 12" (which applies to most today) AND/OR are playing mostly older records from the late 1950ies to mid/late 1970ies with rather small and short run-out groove (i.e. cut close to the inner label ) then Baerwald IEC will inevitably result in high distortion figures in the last minutes of each record sides.
There is no free lunch here.
We have a large variety of different pivot tonearm designs which not only differ in their design apparent to the eye, but also in their geometrical design.
If you get a reading of less than 10 mm in overhang for a 10" tonearm (SAEC 308 SX), then the geometry in question is wrong for that particular tonearm.
I do not want to go into any more length about this ( I have done so intensely in the past and really dived into this topic till I reached solid rock....), but let me suggest you try Löfgren B DIN or Stevenson DIN and come back to us with your findings.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Blammy, no customer request so far for a special Raven template. And yes, the Löfgren B is readily availalble for both DIN and IEC ...;-) ...
Thank you,
D. |
Dear Geoch, Raul and I agree here to a large extend. I have not "discovered" any "paradox" here. I just questioned the universal used baerwald IEC as I know from personal experience with many tonearms and from a large record collection with many samples from the late 1950ies and 1960ies (i.e. cut close to the inner label...) that Baerwald IEC is not always the best possible.
The fact that it is the most widely used lead to the evolution that it is no longer questioned at all.
It is indisputably the best possible for a 9" tonearm AND for tracking modern records with longer lead out-grooves.
But there are 10", 10.5", 11" and other odd tonearms out there and there are many Mercury SR, DECCA SXL, Impulse, Columbia 6-eye tec. out there.
And Baerwald IEC is not ideal for them.
The records you play do have an important role here. If the majority of them is cut following and taking advantage of the wide area of DIN, then IEC is sub-optimal and an alignment following DIN might be better suited.
And no - an offset angle does not determine a tonearm's geometry. But if your cantilever when aligned is far off line with the offset of your tonearm, then that should tell you something .....
I did long research when designing the UNI-Protractor and I offer a wide range of universal as well as individual templates for good reason - and certainly not just to fill the books....;-) ...
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Geoch, sorry - but but I was hopping for a clarification about those guru settings & uknown methods of unique geometry alignments...(?) is certainly not the way I want to attend things and I do not want to be addressed. This is about attention to detail and about viewing a scenario from all sides. Then addressing the topic with the needed precision and that's about it. Nothing about "unknown settings" - this is all euclid geometry and approaching things with a kind of engineers approach. It is just not "brushing everything with the same brush". Cheers, D. |
Dear Geoch, tonearm geometry and thus optimized alignment is indeed predictable. The mere geometrical parameters of a given tonearm do show which calculation curve is suited best to its inherent design.
However - I do not want to stress that point, but I need to mention again - it does play an important role too, whether the majority of one's records is rather older vintage and more cut following DIN or whether your platter is only spinning reissues of the 1990ies and our day ( which are indeed all following IEC standard).
Tonearm geometry is one of the few truly predictable areas of audio.
But it needs attention to detail and taking into consideration all aspects.
In the past 2 decades tonearm geometry was sadly neglected by many - in the awareness of most people we had Baerwald IEC and that's it.
Few did question why there still were other calculations and why certain tonearms did sound fabulous in one system set-up and were trashed aside by other audiophiles as mediocre at best.
To address your question of a few posts before: If the line of your aligned cantilever is off-line compared to the offset angle ( i.e. they do NOT share the same angle compared to your tonearms main) of your tonearm (or a fixed offset angle in a fixed headshell ( SME V for instance )) then you have another - an additional - breakdown torque moment in the static force model of your tonearm.
Now what does this mean in plain words and practical sonic results ?
In most cases it will result in an increased skating force - resulting in higher unlinear distortion figures.
Now why "specific" templates for specific tonearms when Löfgren, Baerwald or (sometimes ..) Stevenson would satisfy all our needs ?
Because some tonearm geometries are VERY strange (read: sub-optimal .. . for instance the SAEC 506/30 which geometry is optimized to track 10" records !) and some are just a way off and can be MUCH improved with small alternations to the designs geometric parameters ( my "beloved" FR-64s for instance...).
As said before - Raul and I are in agreement on most of these topics. But IMHO and following my personal experience I believe that there are some designs out there which call for a bit more attention to detail and which can not be optimized "following the books".
Sometimes I might be a bit too obsessed with attention to detail and questioning undisputed "facts", but IMHO tonearm alignment and geometry are fields of plain and rather simple physics and need only attention and precision to pay off their "sonic" fruits for all of us.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Mesael, thank you - especially for your good minded advise ..;-) ... I really appreciate.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Geoch, no problem - it is just that I don't have the patience right now to go into this topic step-by-step.
In general my position is, that so far tonearm alignment is seen in a way too small perspective. There is more than just the two zero points and average or maximum distortion figures. It is very important where these zero points actually are located and where the maximum distortion figures occur on the arc over the record side. The actual curve of the groove gets ever smaller and as such it is IMHO very important to get very low distortion figures close to the innermost grooved area. But not in the narrow minded way that the Stevenson alignment concentrates each and everything on the DIN or IEC limit of grooved area.
The actual offset angle of a tonearm in comparison and sometimes in fight with the actual offset angle determined by the alignment curve is another topic which can significantly influence the skating force - and such the sonic performance.
Wherever I have re-aligned a tonearm/cartridge in set-up and systems of befriended audiophiles I always earned amazement due to the improvement in sonic performance.
No mystic - no "secret" here, just care, a view from many different point, precision and attention to detail.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Jazzgene,
let me address your last question first:
the UNI-Protractor works even with an Ikeda or a FR-7f - compared to these two cartridges' ultra low bodies, the Grado Statement is walking on stilts .....
The Jig you mentioned and use allows alignment only for either Stevenson IEC or one of 3 recommendations by it's manufacturer.
These e are suitable only for very modern records cut for audiophile purposes (like 45 rpm short cuts) or reissues.
The Stevenson IEC isn't all that great to start with, but try any of the three manufacturer's recommendations with an old Mercury, Impulse, Columbia, RCA LSC - in fact most any record from the 1960ies or 1970ies - and you will run into high distortion towards the last 1/2" of your records groove, as the derivation from the tangential ideal rises steep with these alignments.
These alignments are mainly suitable for the 9" tonearms of the jig's manufacturer and for records cut following IEC standards only and offering a rather small actually grooved area ending way apart from the inner label.
A rather specialized tool - and specialized for a very certain kind of records mainly, but even among those, there are pressings which will not really suitable to be tracked with such an alignment.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Kostas_1, it is an independent (there is a P2S scale coming with the UNI-Pro) and extremely precise P2S instrument which gives the mounting distance on digital display and with 1/100 mm accuracy.
It works with the special tt-spindle adapters of the UNI-Pro, but is a kind of rather speciality for professional use.
There will be another very nice add-on for the UNI-Protractor available end of march.
Stay tuned.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Glai,
according to it's manufacturer specifications the Dynavector 507MK2 asks for a special geometry ( like many other japanese designs like Fidelity Research, SAEC, Technics EPA to name just the most prominent).
There is an individual template available for the Dynavector 507MK2 in the UNI-Protractor-system.
Thanks,
D. |
Dear Blue_nose, thank you very much for your kind comment. I tried to give the serious analog audiophile the instrument to really bring out the very best performance possible from any tonearm.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Jtimothya, thank you. I will post the whole UNI-Protractor manual on the website in April 2011. By then the first production run will have reached it's owners and we will have the first experience reports.
The Azimuth template is an additional feature to help getting azimuth adjustment - at any spot on the arc - as perfect horizontal level as possible.
It is an optical "helper".
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Nandric, to my surprise the UNI-Protractor found several new owners the past 2 weeks who indeed have one tonearm and one cartridge only.
Apparently it is not only about universality and versality - but also about precision.
@Thom_mackris: thank you for your detailed and elaborate post.
I will be back home tomorrow night and will grant your post with the detailed response it deserves.
Apparently I have to clear up a few miss-understandings and miss-interpretations.
However - we have already 2 excellent volunteer reviewer's of the UNI-Protractor: Downunder and Halcro.
I am sure both will compare their UNI-Protractors with the other templates currently on the market and will share their findings here on Audiogon.
Right now I am 400 miles from home and it has been a long business day with 2 enduring meetings.
But one last thing: I am not a manufacturer - I have designed the UNI-Protractor and I am supervising the 1st production run.
My Audiogon ID was used to launch the introduction here on Audiogon on my request.
I did so, because the existance of the UNI-Protractor is a direct result of two fierce discussions here on Audiogon about tonearm geometry, I designed it to demonstrate in realis a few topics - and as Downunder put it: "looks like D. has put his money where his mouth is" (I REALLY liked that one !!).
More tomorrow.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Raul, while I share your opinion that a tonearm designer have to supply a protractor with his tonearm which does fulfill the designer's concept and should ensure the perfect function and geometry of the tonearm, I likewise share the opinion's of Thuchan and Thom_mackris.
An individual protractor for a given pivot tonearm is always just ONE option. There is no single geometry for a given pivot tonearm which is best under ALL possible requests and conditions.
A fact which alone justifies the existence of "UNIversal protractors" as well as specialized "individual templates" supplied by the "aftermarket".
More later.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear all, I dearly hope moderators allow me this lengthly post to clarify a few topics.
Some spare moments so I would like to take the chance set some things straight.
The UNI-Protractor is the off-spring of my own "need and want" to have an instrument at hand which suits each and every tonearm I have encountered (many ....) and ever will come across in the best possible way.
I focused on true universality, exact positioning and repeatable precision in every alignment.
I agree with everyone that a printed paper template might be enough.
It is just not for me.
We are playing with top $ cartridges and tonearms (not to mention phono stages and the rest of the pack ...) and I for one want the best possible from these 2 front-line devices of the analog chain.
In tonearm alignment we are facing one of the very few true geometric and mechanic "fields" in audio.
Here nothing is about taste or like/dislike.
Here everything is about putting the stylus and it's cantilever in a position where the stylus' trip through the groove will produce the least errors and thus the best possible result.
For those in doubt that real precise alignment is king, I recommend to visualize the dimensions of the tonearm, stylus and groove.
If you amplify all dimensions of the tonearms length and the polished contact area of your stylus by 1000x, your average tonearm is anywhere between 250 meter and 300 meter long.
Your stylus contact area is still only about 1.5 cm x 5 cm .......... hanging at the top of a tonearm longer than 2 football fields .....
The 0.5 mm error you may have had in your alignment is now half a meter off the line.
I think the message is clear.
Precision is king - nowhere in the audio chain more important than here: at the very start.
What you loose here to less than best possible alignment can never anywhere in the cain be recovered.
It is about positioning the polished area of your stylus in the most perfect way in relation to the groove's walls - and that for it's whole journey and on every record.
This is setting the horizontal plane once and for all - and for all the records you are playing. VTA is setting the vertical plane and that is a question of groove-compliance.
But the alignment of the zero (points) is the raw basic on which everything else builds.
Now about my "geometry" and a few misunderstandings floating around:
To me Baerwald, Löfgren and Stevenson - DIN or IEC - are certainly not the only suitable alignment curves.
That there is no generalization like Baerwald/Löfgren is always best suitable for all tonearms
This first came to my attention about 25 years back when I struggled to get the best possible sound from my Fidelity Research FR-64s. The manufacturers specs were sub-optimal and so were all alignments following any of the above mentioned big 3.
And all the templates I had - and I had all ever put to the market - suffered to optimize the FR-64s (most if not any were following Baerwald IEC of course) due to its special geometry.
There are a good many tonearms out there which do produce better results with an alignment not following Baerwald or Löfgren - as their geometrical design calls for different calculation to bring out their very best.
Another great example is the SAEC 506/30, which geometry indeed is optimized by its designers to play 10 records and singles !!
So - there is not secret geometry here, but I have indeed calculated some individual templates with a geometry different from their manufacturers specifications ( which Ive found to be not correct or sub-optimal) and different from Baerwald, Löfgren or Stevenson calculations.
Not all, - but a good few.
This includes templates for the Talea 2 and the Reed 3Q.
One should always keep in mind, that every arc calculation is always a compromise. It is always a question of where to put the focus of attention.
IMHO it is quite important to focus the attention on the last 1/3rd of the groove.
There is good evident reason for this: most climax in symphonic music is towards the last minutes of a movement and thus most likely situated towards the inner label. Very vulnerable to distortion and miss-tracking - I guess many here have had their experiences and know what I am talking about.
Furthermore the radius of groove curve gets smaller towards the inner label - as such the environmental conditions for the stylus alignment towards the groove wall gets tougher by nature.
In other words: low distortion figures in the first 1/3 of a record is less important than in the last 1/3.
Most of my personal calculations do result in falling in between Baerwald and Löfgren B.
Each templates for the UNI-Protractor do come with a leaflet describing the individual calculation and its pro and cons for the user and gives clear recommendations what calculation to use what what tonearms and which purpose (old jazz-LPs, symphonic recordings and pressings from the 1950ies to 1970ies, records cut in what period et al).
The UNI-Protractor is an engineers approach and device to ensure for the user - with ease and easily repeatable precision - an optimized alignment. Easy, swift but reliable and universal by all means.
There will soon come 2 very nice options to further widen the possibilities and options of the UNI-Protractor which will go far beyond anything we have ever had before.
Stay tuned.
And I look forward to the first reports by fellow Audiogoners about the UNI-Protractor.
I for one will continue to supervise the production and the quality control of the UNI-Pro.
My own tonearm design is almost finished and will go into production in June 2011.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Nandric, dear Mesael, everybody actually holding the UNI-Protractor in hand and see and feel it's build and parts quality will agree, that the price-value ratio is rather one of the very best in audio. The production costs are serious and this is not made in China..... but in Germany. And the linear stage drive is a custom production - nothing off any shelf or catalogue.
Now does it pay off in terms of sonics?
Oh yeah.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Thom_mackris, you've hit the nail's head. Although it was Syntax' who deserves the credits for the phrase you quoted.
I think we all too often lightly and needless give away quality of performance right here at the very start and without realizing. This is the "very core point" I wanted to address with the UNI-Pro. Enabling everybody to very precise alignment with ease and universality.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Pgtaylor, the SME V's alignment is indeed a very special problem. The Schroeder is different and offers the user a wider range of options.
But back to the SME V, which was when introduced anticipated like no other tonearm ever before or ever after.
The SME V is unique in the sense that it's offset and effective length (at least its designers thought so and intended it to be that way...) are fixed and pre-determined. Problem is, that SME Ltd. took for granted that each and every cartridge manufacturer would strictly follow IEC standards regarding stylus-mounting slots distance. Which of course they did not.
Now there is the legendary SME slide base to allow sliding the whole tonearm back and forth. That way the arm kind of "moves to the wanted alignment spot".
In theory....
The fact that the fixed offset angle of the fixed headshell isn't really a feature which eases things in any way did not really appeal to the SME engineers in their strive for setting the technical frontier in tonearm design.
Now can one align the SME V precisely with ANY cartridge mounted ?
Yes.
As long as the protractor reacts to a change in P2S as well as to a change in effective length automatically.
The UNI-Pro individual templates do offer for a given tonearm (and there is a individual UNI-Pro template for the SME V of course) an optimized spot of alignment - the corresponding effective length and ( in the case of the SME V ) the P2S are direct results of the alignment and are automatically generated.
Without any calculation required by the user.
In the case of the SME V (which really is a very special issue) there is however way less options for variations in alignment/calculation curves.
The SME V is a super strict 9"/Baerwald IEC-standard tonearm.
You can't really align him a Loefgren or Stevenson curve with good results.
I hope this answers your question, but you are welcome to get in touch directly in case you have further questions regarding your SME V.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Thom_mackris, indeed, this is rather the fine print in tonearm alignment is may already be well beyond what a good portion of the analog department want to muse or think about.
I just wanted an instrument which provides the best possible universal alignment results with super simple handling and comfortable feeling.
I will continue to design a few devices which will nicely work with and are based upon the UNI-Pro.
A super precise and truly new P2S-measuring tool will be introduced end this month. This will come together with an easy goniometer to determine offset-angle fast, easy and precise.
I am considering this rather an add-on of interest only for a few dedicated audiophiles who really want to study the subject.
Furthermore - also end this month - there will be a special USB-microscope w/strong cold light to be used with the UNI-Pro and which can be exchanged with the magnifier and uses the same cut-out frame on the UNI-Pro's main frame as the magnifier.
This will allow magnification 20x to 200x (similar to the Dino-lite) and will come with all features, adjustable and with software for Linux, Windows and Mac.
Plug and play within 10 minutes.
Allows view of the stylus on the spot on your screen with actual measuring tool and photo option.
This will allow the most enlarged and "recordable" look and will further ease as precise alignment as possible ever to the ones among us who are a bit troubled by eyesight showing our advanced age...;-) ....
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Robob, I haven't worked with the SME 309 yet, but his headshell features single mounting holes and hardly any option to alter overhang and/or offset. As such it shares the very same "camp" with it's big brother the "V".
The SME V does feature - as Geoch pointed out - better ball bearings and is a dynamically balanced design ( which - at least IMHO - is an important feature in a pivot tonearm trying to set the state of the art ).
The SME V is - among it's brothers and offsprings - still the best tonearm. Due to superior attention to detail and better parts incorporated.
The other SME tonearms are "trickling-down-products" from the SME V.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Geoch, I do not want to step on any toes here, but in general, a "cardanic" = gimbal bearing does in no way hinder a design approach to give a tonearm dynamic balanced mode.
It is VERY difficult however to apply dynamic balanced mode to a uni-pivot tonearm (it is possible however..).
It is just, that there are "camps" in audiophile analog community and at least a few of them do not really "favor" dynamic balanced mode.
Why this is so, is beyond my limited horizon.
Interesting to note however, that many of those great japanese tonearm designs which have stood the test of time - Micro Seiki MA-505 and MAX, Pioneer/Exclusive EA-10/Pa3, Fidelity Research FR-64s and 66s - do feature dynamically balanced mode.
From the point of view of mere physics and technical engineering, dynamic balanced mode has a few good advantages vs static balanced mode - at least regarding guiding a cartridge with compliance through the groove of a record which is by nature NOT flat in a technical sense.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear all, the last post by Syntax with the two photos showing the different cutting area ( and those weren't yet the absolute extremes of either school - have a look at some of the DMM cuttings from the 1980ies !! ) shouldn't be overlooked, as these pictures nicely illustrate a core problem of tonearm alignment.
The reason behind many "sibilance" and "distortion" problems and one of the reasons why longer tonearms in general are superior over a wider band of records.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Geoch, be careful not to fall into a "trap" here: Löfgren B IEC is NOT a priori better for those records cut close to the inner label!
In fact Baerwald IEC does sport way lower distortions towards the inner groove compared with Löfgren B IEC.
Löfgren B is way better in the middle 3rd of the grooved area, but has it's highest distortion figures towards the cutting limit.
A very dangerous error if one thinks that Löfgren B is better for wide cut records - it certainly is not!
Löfgren B is all about lowering the average distortion figure - but it does so at the expense of the inner grooves.
If you want the lowest distortions possible in or towards the inner groove - which is wise BTW .... especially if you listen to symphonic music and have a large collection of records from the 1950ies and 1960ies - you should have a good look at Stevenson, as it puts the focus exactly on that: lowest distortions and zero error point at cutting limit.
This again is just a general guideline - not meant as a generalization.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Geoch, it is an important feature, but it is only one important feature among a good half dozen others.
Knife-edge bearings do have a good bundle of problems too.
Some of them are quite severe and do limit the performance of a knife-edge tonearm - that's why I personally abandoned the knife-edge bearing pretty early in the development of my design.
Low friction isn't everything (in fact - it is negligible in all better tonearm bearings today).
You should address this topic in a separate thread and I can assure you that you will get many posts and comments by some of the more active A'goners as well as by some tonearm designers.
Please do start that thread.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Henry, knife-edge bearing tonearms do not like cartridges which do transfer a lot of energy into the armwand. Thus SAEC tonearms - despite the fact that some do sport a pretty high moving mass - in general do fare better with cartridge featuring high compliance.
So expect your WE-308 to perform pretty well with most of your MMs, but not with a FR-7.
As I still do favor LOMC and some with really low compliance, the not optimal energy handling abilities of the knife-edge bearings were abandoned in an early design stage.
To achieved my goals I needed very hard and rigid bearings and an armwand which can transfer energy ASAP without torsion or inner resonance.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Henry,
there is - IMHO ... ;-) ... - a direct correlation between low compliance and the amount of energy transferred into the tonearm. Certain bearing principles can handle that energy better - others fare less well.
This is kind of a sensible topic - I am a bit reluctant to discuss toneram bearing principles in public, as I do not want to step on any toes.
If o.k. with you, I will address your question in detail tomorrow in a PM direct to you.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Raul,
Löfgren has not "detected" anything. Neither did Baerwald nor Stevenson nor any of the other persons which did calculations regarding the tracking arc and where to set the 2 tangential zero error points. You are missing one of a few vital pints here.
This is simply applied mathematic - geometry to be precise.
The last facts in known geometry of relevance to our small world which were "detected", were so many many centuries ago.
It is not just about average, peak weighted and/or maximum distortion and comparing those figures.
We have that way to evaluate things in all kinds of statistic everyday life and they are widely used to generalize issues by politicians worldwide with known intent and effect.
Is there a better tangential calculation with better distortion figures for a FR-64s possible - better than Baerwald ( Löfgren A), Löfgren (B) or Stevenson ?
Yes - of course.
Same for a good dozen great tonearms out there.
Why so ?
This is kind of generalizing arithmetical average vs detailed INDIVIDUAL calculation focused on an individual topic.
And maybe taking a few tiny issues into account which shouldn't be neglected.
Funny thing here is, that for the last month it seemed not to trouble you too much that I have designed the UNI-Protractor.
But now you seemed to change your mind and fall back to - very .. - old positions and habits of yours.
"False Prophets" who supported that LOMC-subject and forced a poor man to spent thousands of big dollars for those cartridges.
O.k. - message received.....
I believe that we all soon will see the decline of LOMCs into the mist of history - at least that's the prophecy.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Raul,
you can run your Ikeda in the 506/30 and I am happy to hear that you are satisfied with the performance, but - IMHO ... - the 506/30 is not exploring the performance limits of the Ikeda.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Geoch, I am sorry, but I thought this to be clear from the very start. Maybe a kind of "too specialized"-perspective of mine. It is always about the two null points, where to set them and how to manage to keep the "graph" determined by them rather "down" on the distortion scale.
This is what you can actually "see" in a graph.
What can't be "seen" is the effect minute changes in these null points actually have on certain tonearm designs.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Nandric, any tonearms performance is always in the ear of the subjective beholder. Furthermore it is dependent on a lot of periphery components which do have effects and (hopefully) synergies. An objective judgement in audio is impossible.
What is possible however is a geometrical alignment which strives for perfection. It is a matter of technical gear and precision.
As not all tonearms feature the very same design, nor do all 12" records feature the same grooved area, we have some tonearms which do gain in their performance (here: level of distortion and locations of peaks) from certain alignments which do take into account their individual parameters.
Furthermore - and often missed - when Löfgren and Baerwald made their calculations and did "choose" the arcs they did, it was many years before Robert Fine packed tremendous dynamics into the last 1/2" before the paper label of a Mercury SR-90313 or DECCA decided that the entire Daphnis & Chloe can be cut on 1 single 12" record.
Track a SR-90313 with a FR-64s aligned to Löfgren B and it will match the worst experiences you ever had at the dentist.
Precise alignment is the one - single - topic in analog audio, which is objective. It is simple geometry.
Apply it with a minimum of care and precision and it will give any cartridge and any tonearm the basic chance to shows it's best.
Honestly - there is no problem at all here.
The only one maybe that I do not like to generalize - and I know why and have found good reason.
If Löfgren (A or B ) or Baerwald suits best on all tonearms and records for some audiophiles - fine with me.
But thanks to secularisation, neither I nor anyone else has to follow Galileo's path of pain and revocation against better knowledge.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Dev, thank you. The 2nd production run of the uNI-Protractor starts in April 2011 and we are already taking reservations, as the 2nd production run is limited edition too. You may request individual UNI-templates for your Reed 12" as well as for the TW 10.5 (in fact, both templates are available, as they were already requested from some customers). If you have any specific questions regarding the UNI-Protractors function or would like to have a look into its manual, please send me a PM and I will be happy to send you further info.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Genesis168, couldn't agree more with your last post - you recall the phrase by Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars III - Revenge of the Sith, just before the final duel starts ?
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" .........;-) ....
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Nandric, neither Löfgren nor any of the other (Baerwald, Bauer, Stevenson et al) did "set" the inner limit of grooved area at 57.50 mm or 60.00 mm (distance to center of spindle hole).
These were determined by the record industry and the AES and were NOT inevitable and fixed standards, but merely "suggestions". We have many examples, where the groove went even past the DIN standard.
Löfgren, Baerwald (Löfgren A), Stevenson et al tried to give a "general" calculation.
Each of them did value different aspects of the calculation different.
Each of them has had his reasons for doing so.
Löfgren's - as well as Baerwald's - first calculations (pre WW II !!!!) were many years before microgroove record was launched and several decades before a fine line or micro-ridge stylus was first introduced.
Löfgren tried to minimize distortion over as large an area of the record as possible. He did so at the expense of the last and most critical inch of the groove, where the distortion level of his calculation sky rockets.
Very very dangerous and with devastating sonic results for the last 2-4 minutes, if your records have a long groove - i.e. run close to the label.
Take one of your examples with 4.5 cm to the hole - Löfgren B DIN is here way over 2% tracking distortion - for example THREE TIMES the distortion level of Stevenson DIN at this point !
And that happens at the most critical point, as the difference between inner and outer groove angle becomes ever wider with reduced diameter creating and awkward situation for a modern stylus.
Löfgren B is only great for records which do feature a rather short grooved area - i.e. with records with long lead out groove.
So - sorry - generalization in pivot tonearm alignment isn't really smart.
Unfortunately the world isn't crowed only with DMM-pressings, but there are Impulse, old Verve, Mercury SR, RCA LSC and DECCA SXL too.
Then there are different tonearms from a SME V or SME 3009.
This is an audio world full of variations and derivations from standards.
It is part of the game.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear all, I would like to add, that in professional audio and engineering - at least here in "old" europe - the discussion about Löfgren, Baerwald etc. is long dead.
Löfgren and Baerwald did their calculations based on mono pick-ups and in a time when modern microgroove records were an idea of the far future.
A mono stylus has VERY different tracking conditions compared to a modern stereo stylus. Stevenson took this into account first and recognized the dangerous conditions towards the inner groove. In later years Rother, Kishimi and others further commented about this.
Among all these later (read: stereo era) engineers diving into the topic of tonearm calculation it was without question, that different tonearm geometries required different calculations.
It is always about effective length, overhang and offset angle. But it is also about grooved area, increasing diameter and resulting increasing difference between inner and outer groove wall, importance of lower geometrical based distortions in area of divergent tracking conditions.
It is all geometry, but for Löfgren and Baerwald (as a direct result of their time and the limited requirements) it was only a 2-dimensional model.
But a stereo groove is a 3-dimensional model and a very tricky one in the last 3rd of a grooved 12" record.
To understand completely what is going on, one must first look and comprehend the whole model - not just a simplified one without the most critical parameters.
This is true in tonearm calculation and as well in tonearm construction.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Raul, you said Dertonarm, everyone is asking here for your precise answers about especially those " special " set up with some specific tonearms. . Sorry, - you are the only one who asks. All others have long understood the context. Cheers, D. |
Dear Raul, maybe you should read Löfgren's own papers in the original language they were written - in german. It help's understanding the matter.
Löfgren A is today more commonly named Baerwald.
Sorry, but Löfgren himself in his later comments ( in german again ...) to his own papers put together the characteristics of his calculation exactly as I described it earlier.
But maybe Löfgren was wrong about his own idea and you know certainly better.
Löfgren A spreads the two zeros further apart - Löfgren B puts them closer together.
Results in lower average but higher maximum distortions in Löfgren B and vice versa with Löfgren A/ Baerwald.
It is still about mono and not about microgroove and not about stereo.
Stevenson knew why he did went in other directions - he did so over 25 years later and with 8 years stereo available to the customer.
Nice to learn you do not hear any distortions - but that leaves a lot of possible explanations.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Genesis168, sure enough Stevenson was not stupid - nor for certain is Harry Weisfeld. Both knew/know what they are doping and why.
BTW - Stevenson did in his calculation put the 2nd zero tangential error point ("null point") right at the DIN - respective IEC - cutting limit (i.e. innermost grooved area).
So the tracking distortion due to tangential error is always zero at the theoretical innermost groove.
This is per Stevenson's definition.
At this very same point Löfgren A is approx. 600% (6x) more distortion and Löfgren B is approx. 1000% (10x) higher distortion ( based upon that Stevenson is still say 0.1% tangential error distortion and not really zero ).
Löfgren did "sacrifice" the the inner groove for lower distortions between the 2 zero points.
This works especially well with shorter tonearms (9") and with records with long lead out groove.
He did not took into account stereo and did not dream about what wide-cut LPs some record companies would put out in the late 1950ies and 1960ies.
Many japanese audiophiles with 12" tonearms do align to Stevenson and for - again - very good reason.
With increased effective length of a given tonearm (especially so if the tonearm gets really long .. 11" and more) the Stevenson alignment's curve get's better and better vs Löfgren A (Baerwald) and Löfgren B.
In mountaineering you can usually choose between several routes to climb a mountain. Depending on your skills, periphery conditions, preference and experience. Each route has it's benefits and trade-offs.
Some do accept only the first, old and marked route and some do look for new routes.
Same here.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Geoch, my calculations for several tonearms are based on my point of view that the last 3rd of the grooved area is more sensible to distortions and tracking error because in the 3-dimensional stereo groove the difference in angle between the inner and outer groove increases with decreasing radius.
That is creating already a difficult situation for the stylus' contact area.
Stevenson tried to solved this "stereo"-problem by simply setting the 2nd zero error at the DIN and IEC inner limit of grooved area.
Usually I aim to find a 2nd zero point between Baerwald/Löfgren A and Stevenson. Resulting in about as low average distortion as Löfgren B AND only slightly more maximum distortion compared with Baerwald/Löfgren A.
Important point IMHO is, that "my" maximum distortion figures are at the very beginning of a record - i.e. in that area, where the difference between inner and out groove wall is lowest and therefor least sensible to tracking error.
"My" idea of tangential calculation tries to get the best of both worlds while taking into account the fact that we are dealing with a 3-dimensional stereo groove here AND that the most critical (read: loudest, most dynamic, highest amplitude) passages in many genres of music do occur towards the end of a piece/movement.
So "my" calculation usually sports VERY low distortions in the last 15% of the groove.
I know what I am doing and I do know exactly why.
There is no secret here, but just a comprehensive survey and a critical look at the tonearms geometry, the stereo groove and the requirements faced with the records cut the last 5 decades.
No one has to follow my ideas nor do I postulate they are the one and only ones. I know however that they do give excellent sonic results and do take into account issues others have missed.
On the other hand, Löfgren A/Baerwald, Löfgren B and Stevenson - DIN as well as IEC - are all readily available as UNI-templates.
And there are some 9" IEC-based tonearms and small collections of modern records only (with rather long lead-out groove), where Löfgren B is certainly best.
But then there are too tonearms like a FR-64s and records like old Mercury SR, DECCA SXL, Verve and Impulse (to name just a few) which do "fare" way better with "my" calculation.
The UNI-Protractor is an universal precision positioning and alignment instrument. Independent whether you use "my" calculation for a few specific tonearms or whether you go for any of the "standard" calculations. Those are all options one can choose or dismiss.
You may noted, that I have not postulated a "Dertonarm"-alignment curve.
I only did some individual calculations for some specific tonearm designs.
That's it. Because generalization isn't always preferable.
I for one are neither on a crusade nor do I preach to follow my point of view only.
I have designed an instrument the serious audiophile can use with as broad a choice of options as possible.
Nothing more - but nothing less.
Hope I could clarify the point.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Nandric, any VPI tonearm can be aligned to calculation curves different from the one Harry Weisfeld favors.
And there are far more VPI tonearms out "there" than many think.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Jj2468, the linear tracking tonearms - in any incarnation we have seen so far from Rabco, Denessen, Goldmund, Versa Dynamics, Air Tangent, Eminent, Forsell et al -displayed mechanical issues, periphery problems and stability problems which did always crippled their undisputed tangential advantage.
Most audiophiles who ever ventured into tangential tonearms later moved to tonearms with 11" or more effective length to approach kind of "best of both worlds".
Means they minimize tangential tracking error by means of increased effective length while keeping the kind of "practicability" of the pivot tonearm.
Thus minimizing the tangential "advantage" of the linear tracking tonearm.
I have had all the above named tangential tonearms in most all their incarnations in my system in the past 30+ years.
They all were promising and were able - some more, some less - to produce great sonic results (at least for moments or short periods of time).
It were certain sonic shortcomings apparent in all these designs plus practicability issues and long-time problems for many cartridges which ultimately drove me away from tangential designs.
A 11" or 12" pivot tonearm precisely aligned leaves little place to shine for a tangential design, which always and only builds on it's zero tangential tracking error - by sacrifice of other important dynamic and mechanical parameters in a tonearm.
Cheers,
D |
Dear T_bone, you hit the nail on the head. For instance any derivation from a given tonearms design inherent offset angle results in an alternation of it's mechanical model - here it results in an additional breakdown torque, which has profound effects on the skating force. There are some tonearms out there which are designed in almost 100% compliance to Löfgren A/Baerwald IEC standard (all these tonearms being 9" effective length by the way). But then there are many tonearms out there which are not. And for those it is not just about aligning to certain null-points, but also that aligning to them does alter their resulting skating force (among other effects).
Usually one would say: o.k. just make the offset angle smaller and the skating force (resulting of the offset angle) will get less.
Not so as we have a design inherent offset angle and just apply a second one by twisting the cartridge in the mounting area in a different angle.
Thus resulting in a 2nd breakdown torque.
On the other hand there are tonearms like the Talea, which do feature an offset which is "free" to be determined on first glance, but which nevertheless follows Löfgren A IEC with clear given offset angle as specified by it's manufacturer.
This all should shine an additional light on the tonearm alignment topic and why there are different calculations, different focuses and different geometries.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Halcro, the change to 231.5 mm mounting distance (and thus effective length, offset(slightly) and overhang does indeed result is a lower overall distortion level for about 74% of the grooved area compared to the "original" specification in the FR-60 manual/paper template of the FR-64s.
Distortion levels at the start of a 12" record are far less obvious (read: audible) and far less dangerous then they are towards the inner label.
Why so?
Because the difference in radius of the inner groove wall towards the outer groove wall increases with decreasing record radius.
Not a great situation for the stereo stylus.
This too is one of the reasons, why "average distortion" and "maximum distortion" figures for a given tonearm alignment calculation only give half the story.
Where are the maximum distortions? At the start of a record (usually with my calculations) or at the end of the grooved area (Löfgren A/Baerwald and Löfgren B).
How is the "average" determined ? By a narrow but very high maxima and a long area with low distortions ? Or by a rather long area with mid distortion level but no real high peak ?
IMHO (god - I really begin to love this phrase ... ) average and maximum distortion figures may be fine and all for some, but they do not really get to the core.
So why did you hear immediately an improvement in sound with "my" recommendation changing the FR-64s alignment?
First - you had less skating force (remember me saying that there might be additional breakdown torque with an added offset?).
Second - the not linear distortion level was less by 30% for more than 70% of the record.
Third - the FR-64s' "inner" geometry was finally matched by that alignment.
Some may think it is all just effective length and the resulting and depending parameters - offset and overhang.
IMHO ...;-) .... - that is not the complete entire model and doesn't tell all the story.
BTW - all UNI-Protractors of the 1st production run do get collected for ship off tomorrow and thursday.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear all, the UNI-Protractor does feature on it's main frame laser engraved the inner radii for both IEC and DIN standard in a way that if you place it on the record, you can immediately read-out what is the inner groove limit of the record.
Thus giving you a secure basis to choose alignments taking into consideration the groove limit of the majority of your records.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear all, just out of curiosity - does anyone know, what calculation is used with the Dennesen Soundtraktor ?
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Genesis168, despite what some here on Audiogon did say past early winter in a deleted thread, the original Dennesen Soundtraktor is 100% Löfgren A / Baerwald IEC.
"My" calculation for the FR-64s has nothing to do with Stevenson.
The original manufacturers specs weren't all that bad ( they are close to Stevenson but did put the 2nd null point even closer to the label - apparently Isamu Ikeda did have a lot of Mercurys and early DECCA SXL in mind when he choosed that alignment ...;-) ....) , but they did not do the geometry of the FR-64s any right.
It is not enough to find the white papers and the alignment calculator in Vinylengine - it is more about understanding what is actually important in a calculation curve for a stereo record ( and yes, - it has more and slightly different requirements compared to a mono record) and where to position the 2 null-points to get the best performance.
As said before - the "common model" we find everywhere is a bit simplified and takes too little into account that we are dealing with a 3-dimensonal stereo groove here - not mono.
At least - not me.
Cheers,
D. |
