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. |
Have been following this thread daily since it started and have ordered mine.
Received confirmation of my UNI-Protractor, #38.
Can't wait. |
Dear Daniel,
I understand, just making a jest on the price. To deviate from an accepted norm really need a lot of courage.
I'll make sure my order will be included in the 2nd batch.
I know you've sold many Davinci in the past. My tonearm is 12" Grandezza and my lps collection are mostly 70s to 90s rock and new wave, and current reissues. What templates should I get?
Rgds, |
I do recall the original stated price was slated till... March. Afterward would rise $100. I do recognize the value/quality of this tool. I'm a watchmaker who has/uses/appreciates many examples of fine european tooling. |
We are confident however, that we can keep the price tag of the 2nd production run where it is now. don't forget, this is a price without the usual Importer and Dealer mark ups. When selling it that way, most of you know what area will be reached. This is unfortunately one of the main problems in High end audio. When done right (expensive but superior parts) it is out of reach for most discriminated Audiophiles. When forced to cut costs, it can be made in cheap plastic. With black glossy finish. In a way it was done wrong. Starting with cheap plastic for 700 and giving a nice rebate... Btw. can I have mine with a 24k Gold frame? |
@Thuchan,
I listen to mostly classical although I don't know if you can call artists like Xenakis "classical" but that is someone I am studying right now. I play jazz for a living!
Anyway, I can only be so lucky to have received it yet. Still waiting for my Uni-pro. My main concern is the ease of use which Mint did not provide and Yip shows poor customer service with. Also precision is very important. Looking forward to using it. |
Dear Mesael, I am sorry, but the production costs of the UNI-Pro (linear drive especially) proofed pretty worse in the 1st production run.
Everything with the UNI-Pro is custom designed and many parts needs to be custom made.
Aside from the micrometer screw there are few parts we can actually use without alternation.
The 1st production had a special introduction price and sold out (35 units) within 2 weeks.
Furthermore the ever declining value of the US$ 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. |
My, my , this is bad. I think the price will go up. Daniel, promise no price increase for 2nd batch.
Cheers, |
Jazzgene, I suppose your name gives a hint to your favourite music, this fondness we share! while you might already have unpacked your Uni-Protractor let me describe my experience after having aligned two tonearms, the SAEC WE 8000 and the FR-66s.
I used to take the Dennessen when I start aligning which I regard for most of my tonearms as an absolutely appropriate tool. In the beginning I was a bit sceptical also being influenced by the controversial discussion in this thread.
When I started with the SAEC the difference was not only one or two mm, the original SAEC geometrical data for the WE 8000 suggest a completly different set up. I had to bring back the cart for about 4mm which was not easy having to tackle with the special WE 8000 headshell. In the end the musical result is fine. I have to admit I also liked the Dennessen position.
Nevertheless this motivated me to try it with the FR-66s (images on my
page). Here the difference was only 1mm, hence a small gap which can make you happy or not.
I played back with the EMT JSD 6 Jubilee Series, originally designed for my EMT R 80 - coming with an EMT connection. Thanks to a wonderful adapter (from EMT to SME) it also matches with the FR arm. I have to admit this is not only a great cart but having it aligned with the Uni-Protractor it plays precise, provides subtle and detailed information and is also able to drive forward - offers a mellow push.
Dealing with the Uni-Protractor is much more easy than I thought. Of course you have many parts, in my case 8 inlays, but you may keep the Protractor within reach when dealing with different carts and tonearms - for me it is a very good instrument. |
Thuchan:
Looking forward to your more detailed impressions of the uni-pro. Just received my tracking # so I should have mine shortly. |
my first impression with the Uni-Protractor is: very well built quality, the magnifying glass is just great. Very precise alignment is possible. Now I need to test the 8 different tonearm specific inlays, will report... and discover new possibilities maybe... |
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 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. |
I think we all want to learn from your findings about noise.
But the rest of us who were using tubes (& LOMC) we are in a deeper hole. |
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 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 Raul, One of the problems of an perfectionist is the
'endless list' of wishes. But before we start the second round reg. the coplexitys of our records I like to mention
in advance this peculiar capacity of (I hope only) man to 'ignore noise'. Probable caused by evolution of us 'the
hunters'. A friend of my lost his hearing capability and
need to use those hearings devices. His greatest problem is to understand his conversation partner in a gathering.
We all,I think, assume this capability for granted. But
there are among us those who collect all kinds of old records and it is very difficult to presuppose that they are not enjoying them. So my quess is that this is only possible thanks to our capability to ignore the noise. I hope that you or Lew can find in your study books 'the explanation'.
Regards, |
Dear Dertonarm, I had no idea that K. Remer passed awey so
young. Was this the reason for 'passing awey' of the Magazine? I still regard DAS OHR as the best HI-FI Magazine
ever. The peculiar methodology was that each component was revieuwed by two revieuwers to further 'objectivity'. My
estimation is that you was then 20 (?) years old so this
HI-FI virus you got already as a kid. Talking about passion!
Regards, |
Raul, now you're talking what I have been a few pages before. Numbers and numbers don't matter. We care about the sound and about enjoying the music and not numbers. No absolutes. Nothing is and nothing will be. We are free to try and make up our minds. Not with numbers, curves and distortion figures but with the results we hear.
LP is basically a flawed or imperfect meduim like you just said. We all know that and make the best out of it.
Thank you and enjoy the music |
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. |
Thanks D. I think I can see why people would like it. And I agree - all it has to do is suit one's needs and work well, and it would seem to be a better solution than the template provided with the arm. It is good to be open-minded about one's own priorities and be able to question the 'establishment' standards, even if it makes you a criminal in the minds of the 'authorities' or the moral police... :^) |
Raul,
After this explanation, I am going to have to give up on this. I will stipulate that all the numbers you have provided above are correct. No dispute there.
I tested the original claim from many months ago (with an estimate I have labelled Dert63 above) against the original reference (245mm EL Baerwald or Lofgren). One does not, in fact, have to compare everything on a common P2S or common EL because in fact, the original claim did not.
In this thread, he made certain VERY specific and precisely qualified claims. Those claims were VERY clearly made on the basis of a certain opinion about record size (hence my use of DIN standard) and his own listening priorities (reduce distortion in the latter half of the record at the expense higher max distortion at the beginning), i.e. use a weighted distortion curve rather than an un-weighted distortion curve. Again you ask for proof. He wouldn't provide it, for what I now clearly see were good reasons not to, but I was curious, so I derived what I could based on these claims. As I have shown, each one of the claims seems to hold up when one does the math.
To my knowledge, NOBODY (not myself, Dertonarm, or anyone else) has EVER disputed the 'fact' that over a whole record, Lofgren B and Baerwald/LofA have lower average and lower equal-peak un-weighted tracking distortions than any other solutions for a given effective length. It is just math. Everyone stipulated this point long ago. Just to be safe, I repeated it.
His opinion about the qualitative aspect of tracking distortion across the record is clear. His listening priorities are clear. Based on his 'weighting', he has recommended and used something else than standard. That is his choice. As 'proven', his priorities would absolutely support use of Dert63 vs either of the Lofgrens. As you said, there are no 'absolutes' other than the math. It is some people's opinion that 'math' can be absolutely perfect in theory, and still applied wrongly sometimes.
The math stands up to support his priorities. The math stands up to support your priorities too. Everyone needs to make their own choices about priorities. I leave it there.
Kudos to Dertonarm for staying out of this. I should have as well. |
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 Pryso, no problem. My "question" was rather ironic and could easily lead to a misunderstanding. Mea culpa.
Cheers,
D. |
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: +++++ " 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. |
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 Nandric: Thank you, yes are the same numbers we are talking about.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Raul, I assume that I quoted from 'Das Ohr' in the thread about the FR-64 S. According to the reviewers the
geometry in the user manual was not optimal and they proposed 231.5 mm spindle-pivot distance and 146mm eff. lenght. Those are the 'FR numbers' you are refering to.BTW
Dertonarm was also reviewer by 'Das Ohr' in those time so
I thought wrongly that he must be of my age. No idea if those numbers are of any help but I used them for my FR-64
already in 1984.
Regards, |
Dertonarm, my apologies for assuming you did not know the basis for the Dennesen design. I thought you were inquiring about that on 3/22 when you ask, " just out of curiosity - does anyone know, what calculation is used with the Dennesen Soundtraktor ?"
Then later that date you posted, "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 only intent was to verify the information from the Dennesen manual and to offer a little bit of user experience with that tool.
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? |
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. |
Raul, I do not understand your question and what you are looking for in your "1984 German magazine" post. I do not know where the Nandric reference comes from. I do not know what "those FR numbers" refers to. If you want to tell me what "those FR numbers" refers to, please do. I also do not know what you are talking about when you say "I'm still waiting what I ask you before" but it may be answered below. As to your next post, the numbers I posted for Dert63 DIN (246/14.5/20.574) were: whole-record average of 0.42% for Dert63 and .433% for Baerwald, and 0.39% for Lofgren B. I get max TD of 0.89% for Dert63, 0.66% for Baerwald, and 1.09% for Lofgren B The link for the Dert63 (20.574mm offset angle) DIN calculation for those parameters on the VE calculator is below: http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_comparator.php?m_el=246&m_oh=14.5&m_oa=20.574&compare=d&submit=calculate They state: 0.421% average and 0.89% max. The link for the 245mm EL (which is nearly the same as the link you provided above - just switched to DIN rather than IEC) is http://www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_comparator.php?m_el=245&m_oh=15&m_oa=21.5&compare=d&submit=calculate They state 0.39% average and 1.09% max for Lofgren B and 0.443% average and 0.661% max for Baerwald. Those numbers on the VE calculator results linked are EXACTLY as I posted. My assumptions are clearly stated. Dert63 uses 246mm EL, 14.5mm OH, and 20.574 degrees offset angle. The Baerwald and Lofgren B references use the original 245mm EL. All three assume DIN groove radii. My recent post focuses on Dert63 rather than Dert66, that is to say on the 20.574 degree estimate (i.e. 63mm inner null point), because it gives the 20% lower max than Lofgren B, and 5% lower average than Baerwald that the deipnosophistic Dertonarm mentioned in one of his earlier posts. If you find different numbers than mine from those links, please show them. I do not see how I can be clearer in my 'proof'. The link to the spreadsheet which would allow you to do the same calculations for average and max distortions over any portion of the modulated groove range (i.e. the inner two-thirds) is provided above. In any case, it is pretty intuitive. Dert63 is something like a shifted Lofgren B. If you shift the Lofgren B curve towards the center, you will have higher distortion at the outer groove, and MUCH lower distortion in the inner area, and because of the shape of the Lofgren B curve, the average of the inner part will be lower with the shifted version. And as I and others have said, choosing geometry is a matter of personal priorities. The 'absolute' with any of these has to be qualified very specifically. |
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. |
Downunder, I am not so much an expert as a student who is not afraid of Excel. The math is easy. For fun and games, please try this spreadsheet. Disquisitive Dert's numbers do NOT provide a better mousetrap technically unless you WANT them to. Choice of alignment depends on priorities, not on absolutes. Lofgren B will get you the lowest average whole-record tracking distortion every time. Baerwald will get you the lowest peak whole-record tracking distortion every time. Using other configurations, like Stevenson, or Dert66 or Dert63 will get you a lower average and peak distortion within a specified section of long-playing records (the average of the inner half, and especially lower on peak distortion in the last 1.0-1.5cm or call it the last 2-4min). As to getting the offset angle set up really accurately, the only real way I can think of to do that is use a high-quality arc protractor (and a good set of eyes) where you can trace the specified arc (the one created by your setup angles), and check tangency of cantilever (or more importantly stylus orientation). Raul, I am not too familiar with the VE calculator but I will, for the sake of the first part, assume it is correct. I have just run a set of calculations using your link as a base. If we use Dert63 DIN (246/14.5/20.574) compared to a standard Baerwald or Lofgren B DIN (245mm EL), I get a whole-record average of 0.42% for Dert63 and .433% for Baerwald, and 0.39% for Lofgren B. I get max TD of 0.89% for Dert63, o.66% for Baerwald, and 1.09% for Lofgren B. These are whole record numbers, and as D suggested, the Dert63 curve looks reasonably like the Lofgren B curve except it is displaced closer in. Note that I use DIN for the calculations because it is obvious from everything that the Doctiloquent Dert has said that he is concerned with records which have smaller inner groove radii than the IEC standard 60.3mm. These would fit the observations made by the Dastardly Dert. The VE graph cannot be used to approximate "inner two-thirds" with any accuracy. I have just recalculated, using a fresh version of my spreadsheet (which I downloaded from the link above), which shows that Dert63 DIN (246/14.5/20.574) has better average tracking distortion over the inner two-thirds of the record than either Baerwald DIN 245 (33% lower) or Lofgren B (13% lower), and lower max than Lofgren B by about 20% (0.89% max (outer groove) vs 1.09% max (inner groove)). I also get an overall average DIN tracking distortion (vs Baerwald) of about 5-6%, using either Dert66 or Dert63 (the difference shifts the shape a bit inwards, lowering last centimeter peak distortion). Note to this: my spreadsheet is set up differently than the VE calculator. It would appear that the "Average" distortion on the VE calculator for IEC is calculated using the DIN min/max groove radii, not IEC. I don't see how the VE calculator gets its average tracking distortion for DIN either. I get the same max but my spreadsheet's average is lower (it does not jump nearly as much in the switch from IEC to DIN). Something may be wrong with the VE calculator to jump that much (it is as if the average calculation includes distortion in the un-modulated grooves (55-57.5mm on the graph) but the max stops at 57.5mm). Strange. I will re-check mine but in any case, my calculations would be more conservative than the VE's if it were the case (i.e. the VE calculator would probably show an even stronger improvement by using Dert63 vs Lofgren B than my numbers show). I hope this helps disembrangle and disculpate the occasionally didactic but certainly dianoetic Dertonarm. :^) |
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. |
Once we cannot change the offset FOR the headshell...
...I suppose it is just a number and the only thing that we have to do, is to align the cantilever (by twisting the cartridge AT the headshell) to follow the axis of the tangent at the null point.
This particular tangent, is quite easy to designed by drawing the line from the center of the spindle to the desired null point and then we can easily find & draw the perpendicular of this line that intersects at the null point.
But I think that Daniel wants to provide a precise goniometer at the near future! |
Excellent work T-Bone, you are not just an expert on all that is good with vintage Japanese hifi.
Not sure I fully understand the maths, however you look to have proved that from your assumptions, Dert's numbers do provide a better mousetrap technically.
I am sure Dert will say how close you are.
BTW, might be a stupid question, but how do you accurately change/measure the offset for the headshell of any given alignment?
Looks like our resident expert has someone else to argue with - you :-) |
2) I simply did this to put a stop to the months of questioning. The exercise took me all of 10mins to do (given a pre-existing spreadsheet), far less time than has been spent on questioning whether the numbers come out this way.... Kudos T_Bone |
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. |
Oops. I made a few typos but it appears I cannot edit my post.
1) Note: datatables are tough to read but please use your imagination.
2) In para3, it should be "inner null point", not "inner groove null point" (guess I have inner groove on my mind...
3) I left out the third "Dert60" which is like a modified Stevenson because the benefits vs actual Stevenson or the other two are terribly significant.
4) Note that doing the algebra took 10. Figuring out how to write it took a bit longer. Hope it helps those in need of "proof" that numbers are numbers. |
Or the links for your calculations if are different from the VE tools.
Thank you again.
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. |
For those wondering about Dertonarm's numbers...
Using the FR-64S as a base, and the original 245mm EL, the average/peak % tracking distortion between 57.5mm and 116mm (the inner 2/3 of the record assuming a 57.5mm innermost groove (DIN standard)) using an IEC inner groove standard (i.e., setting up a tonearm for modern usage, but playing a record with a slightly closer inner groove) sampled at 1mm intervals is as follows:
CURVE Average Peak
Mfr 0.54% 0.85% (same in IEC range)
Stevenson 0.45% 0.72% (same in IEC range)
Baerwald 0.47% 0.86% (0.67% in IEC range)
Lofgren B 0.36% 1.45% (1.02% in IEC range)
If I read through Dertonarm's proposal above, using a 246mm EL and 14.5mm OH, I can come up with a number of different solutions depending on where one sets the inner groove null point (i.e. how one sets offset angle). Based on his "distortion 5% lower than average Baerwald and 20% lower max distortion than Lofgren B", it is easy to get the "5% better than Baerwald" for the whole record, but getting both that and the 20% max distortion depends on the scope of your measurement (does one measure 57.5-146 or 60-146 to find the max - it matters as the Lofgren B tracking distortion can rise a full 0.5% in those last 3mm). I will assume a DIN record but IEC setup, and offer three 'Dert' measurements, depending on where one sets the inner nullpoint.
CURVE Average Peak
Dert66 0.36% 0.98%
Dert63 0.37% 0.89%
Peaks are on the outermost groove whereas for Baerwald/LofB they are on the innermost groove (so Dert's max distortion numbers don't change much if records are longer or shorter, whereas Baerwald, and to a much greater extent Lofgren B, are much more sensitive to how small the runout is).
Offset angle for Dert66 is 20.325 degrees. Offset for Dert63 is 20.574 degrees.
On the inner 2/3 of the record, the average tracking distortion is indeed about 40% below that of Baerwald and 20% less than Lofgren B. Average unweighted distortion is where Dertonarm says it is (right between Baerwald and Lofgren B). However, I cannot get a "45% lower tracking distortion than Lofgren B in the last 8-12mm of a record. I see that the distortion compared to Lofgren B is even lower unless one counts the 60-72mm section. If one does the 57-65mm section, the distortion is 70% lower than Lofgren B.
Note that on the innermost 3mm, Lofgren B is EXTREMELY sensitive as to whether one uses IEC or DIN setup with a record which has a DIN inner groove. The inner null point moves 3mm (to be same as Dert63) from IEC to DIN, in which case the last 12mm is about 50% better than Lofgren B, which is probably close enough to Dertonarm's figures for this exercise.
Disclaimers:
1) I have not discussed this alignment, calculation thereof, or anything related to this post with anyone.
2) I simply did this to put a stop to the months of questioning. The exercise took me all of 10mins to do (given a pre-existing spreadsheet), far less time than has been spent on questioning whether the numbers come out this way.
3) I have never used this setup, but given the above results, I will certainly try.
Note: this kind of alignment should work for any tonearm to a certain extent (assuming flexibility of headshell mounting), because it is really a matter of tailoring the tracking distortion curve to the records and listening preferences one has. If one has a lot of records with a small radius inner groove and significant dynamics or significantly quiet passages in the last 10mm, this kind of 'astuce' (trick) is one which should work on many/most 'universal' tonearms (universal in this case meaning flexible mounting so as to allow significant cart movement forwards, backwards, and by angle). |
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. |
Genesis, as D. apparently learned today, the Dennesen Soundtracktor was based on the Baerwald formula, as discussed in the owner instructions. They also mention the "audible affects of tangential misalignment . . . largely ignored for many years", a point Raul reminded us on.
I've owned a metal version (plastic was also available for less $) for many years. It has provided what I have considered very satisfactory alignments -- provided the arm in use clearly identifies the exact pivot point (my Kuzma Stogi Reference does), good lighting is available, I have my hand held magnifier, and my patience is good that day. ;-)
I would not attempt to use the Dennesen on any arm which does not identify the pivot point (this is critical to the exact set-up of the Soundtracktor for anyone who is not familiar with this device).
It would be interesting to learn if the Lofgren B or Stevenson alignments were considered when Dennesen decided to utilize the Baerwald? |
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. |
|
Raul,
When I changed to the 231.5mm spindle to pivot dimension and 14.5mm overhang, I changed the off-set angle to compensate correctly at the null points.
Halcro Well, I wrote in in the FR Thread - which was deleted - to someone who wrote about 65x about "distortions". Based on some hyper prosecutions about distortions (you-know-from-whom) with Fr-64s+Dennesen+231,5mm P-to S I used my Graham Phantom II, which has an alignment System from B. Graham to adjust the cartridge precisely to a point (which one) and the alignment from cantilever is also possible. The result was identical. Spot on. For those who live in a rubber cell it is probably not easy to understand, but it is boring and a waste of time to repeat it over and o |
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 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. |
