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. |
OK, Harry listens & then tunes his tonearm.
But Daniel doesn't do listening tests, 'cause he doesn't have all these arms in his hand !
This example of VPI arms, proves the value of an alternative curve other than the standard Lofgren A or B or Stevenson, but Daniel do it on paper! just after knowing the dimentions & angles of any particular tonearm !
IMHO this is extremely interesting & arises questions about real new findings concerning the arm's body (shape-form-contour) construction, as designed & manufactured from it's inventor. Not bad at all, to accept & adopt a formula based on Physics and then apply the mathematics. Maybe this scientific theory could help tonearm designers to build better examples that serve & accommodate this demand from the begining of the production, by having the right shape.
Unfortunately this method remains still a secret and the validation by anyone could happened only by listening tests, after purchasing the UNI-PROTRACTOR with the requested special template.
I apologise if I haven't any clue about this, or even worst, if I don't getting the whole theme right and I've just improvise for the rationalization of these templates. |
Dear Jazzgene: VPI designer is a " weird/curious " person:
+++++ " VPI has conducted careful listening tests and determined that every
tonearm we tried sounded better with its mechanical anti-skating
disabled and the tracking force very slightly increased. "
++++
++++ " I did it by ear on my system, not by math on a computer. If you go by distortion you would never use tubes, only solid state " +++++
++++ " OVERHANG ADJUSTMENT:(FIG. 2 AT END OF MANUAL)
Do not go crazy over this adjustment. You do not know if the stylus is aligned
properly on the cantilever. You are also facing a constantly moving
target when playing a record. " +++++
yes, but he take it the work to build a protractor/jig to his customers where he states:
++++ " This adjustment will yield the lowest distortion in the last third of the record, the hardest to track, when playing a typical 12" record " +++++
Certainly not at random and fully by ears.
regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Interesting. I'll take out the VIP jig again and check it out. Currently, my Grado Statement1 is set up with the Mint protractor. By the way, I emailed Yip about my question asking if he might have a better alternative than his 10x loupe and he refuses to get back to me. Kind of not what I expected as when I was in the process of purchase, he was quick to get back to me.
I noticed with the VPI jig that it is easy to fool your own eyes. Because of the white lines and the black jig, you can trick yourself depending on the position you take in front to view. The parallax effect, is it called? It is easier to check it from above but then again, you never can know if the cantilever is exactly perpendicular to the body front... I am starting to think that exact and precise is not in the cards for cartridge adjustment. The stylus might not even be exact to the cantilever, right? |
Dear Jazzgene: Of course you can make the set up at random by ears only, at the begining of some of us on analog ( very old times. ) many of us that have cero know-how on the subject always made this set up almost by ear! so this is not a new menaing.
But ( always exist those " but ". ) that kind of ears set up has several disadvantages like: ears has no Universal " sensitivity ", the ears/mind are biased for what we like or not and that could be far away from real/true, it is almost imposible to make by ears set up a set up with low distortions, a cartridge/tonearm set up must works in any audio system and how could this be when you make the " voicing " in a very limited number of audio systems and audio items?, etc, etc.
Now, I can tell you that VPI was not made it ( set up geometry parameters ) only using ears at random overhang/offset angle. IMHO what he did was using known geometries and adjust by ears what he likes and that's all, changing some of those mentioned three input data. So in reality was not 100% by ears, the posibilities that you can be " there " by ears at random are infinitely low.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Thanks Downunder. My point exactly. The quote from Harry nailed it on the head. I rest my case. |
Dear Trabvrow: +++++ " A tracing arc with a specific distortion curve should have the same geometric error and distortions regardless of the arm, cartridge stylus or if the record is stereo or mono, I thought? " +++++
Bravo!!! because things are so easy and not so " clouded " as he want to paint the picture.
+++++ " but picking a tonarm/cartridge set up geometry that has more tracing error will produce more tracing distortion, unless the mathematics used to figure these distortions are a lie. " +++++
I can't say it with better and simple understanding words. This tonearm/cartridge set up is not a Rocket to Júpiter!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Genesis168: I understand what you mean with " sound " but we are not talking here about " sound " but what is right and what has higher distortions.
Btw, Stevenson don't fix any of the Löfgren shortcomings. Stevenson always has higher distortions even in the inner grooves, please read my 2-3 last posts or better yet use the VE last link I give to you and make for your self the calculations: it is extremely easy.
I don't give the Dennes white paper link for the figures and plot that you seen " many times " ( good ), I give you mainly for you read all what Dennes write other than those figures/plots/equations. I hope that with a new read for your self this time you understand in deep and clean/precise way: good luck!
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Jazzene yes, that is part correct. see Harry's quote below. Bottom line, Harry is the tonearm designer and I agree with my 12.6 & 7, his alignment overall sounded better that B or L. This is probably no different approach to the designers of the FR tonearm, Ortofon, SME, rega, Pioneer/Exclusive, SAEC etc etc - they all did not like B, L or S for probably very good engineering and musical reasons - Something Raul aka " Charlie Sheen - Winning " fails to even try to acknowledge or understand. If you go by science, bumble bees can't fly, tell them that when a hive is chasing you. Seriously, I don't use either of those curves, I did it by ear on my system, not by math on a computer. If you go by distortion you would never use tubes, only solid state. I began using the Mitch Cotter system and tweaked it from there.
This is not a condemnation of eithet system, it's just that I know what they sound like (doing this since 1958) and like my system better. That does not say you shouldn't make the guage, it may sound better for you so I would do it.
They said the same thing on Vinyl Asylum and the German guy ran the number and said the distortion is higher, then he listened to the arm and said I understand why he uses it.
Just my take on audio, yours may be different and there is absolutley nothing wrong with getting the lowest distortion possible.
HW |
Raul, I really get what you mean and what you are preaching. I have seen those figures and plots many times. You are saying "the facts", "specs" or "numbers" are the last word which I totally disagree.
Ask yourself, what are we after in this hobby? "facts/specs" or sound?
Back to Stevenson. He was 25 yrs after Lofgren. Did you ask yourself why he chose a curve with much inferior "facts" than Lofgren? I am sure he knew the Lofgren "facts" and equation before making his so called inferior curve. Did you think he was stupid or was he fixing some of the Lofgren shortcomings? We all know there is no perfect curve. All have tradeoffs.
Maybe Harry of VPI was also wrong. I guess in your books, he is worse than Stevenson by not using any of the famous curves. Did it ever occur to you that Harry chose a curve that sounds best for his tonearm but not with the best "facts"? |
It is all about geometry, the two null points have zero tracing error and if the set up is off the null points will be different than what we think we have. If bad enough the inner null point could be on the record label for example. A tracing arc with a specific distortion curve should have the same geometric error and distortions regardless of the arm, cartridge stylus or if the record is stereo or mono, I thought?
You can't compare tracing error distortions to amplifier THD specifications, we all know there is more to the sound of an amp than THD figures, but picking a tonarm/cartridge set up geometry that has more tracing error will produce more tracing distortion, unless the mathematics used to figure these distortions are a lie. Or maybe a little extra distortion sounds better to some people.
Anyway, a protractor like the DT, if it makes precise alignment easier is a good thing for those who want to buy it. Getting close to perfect alignment even with the best tools takes time and patience and with practice gets easier and sometimes a little luck makes the set up go faster. Moving that cartidge in such tiny amounts and the eye strain always tests my patience. I still use a MintLP and some arc protractors I printed using the vinyl engine template generator. |
Isn't it true that the VPI jig that comes with the 10.5i arm is not based on Lofgren, Baerwarld, or Stevenson? I think I read somewhere that Harry used his ears along with some other method...
And how accurate can one align a stylus by eye and hand? |
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " 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. " +++++
this proves that you are totally wrong again. Dertonarm you are " catched " in your own trick/trap that have no single " window or door " to come out.
In the example of that tonearm with 258mm on effective length Löfgren A at the last one inner groove has 0.809% against higher Stevenson figure that is: 0.962%. Even that you states that because Löfgren/Baerwald times were not the stereo ones and they don't take in count but you know that in those times as today: 2+2 is still 4, stereo or not microgroove or not.
Goech asks the same not only me and if you want I can show you here other Agoner's asking the same.
Read my last ( before this ) post, your call.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Thou shall useth Lofgren and have no other geometries before thee.
For I am the light, the soul, the oracle, the mathematician, your audio deity.
Book of Raul
Chapter 1
Verse 1 |
Dear Genesis168: This could help you too:
www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator.php
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: Please makes things easy with out all useless " words-bla " that means nothing and proves nothing.
Show/bring here the set up parameters for any of those especial tonearm geometry ( other than FR that you proved was a dissater with your parameters, even Stevenson was better. ) designs and then with those numbers we in this open forum and in front of all of us we can make the calculations and see if in reality exist significant ( if any ) lower distortions not only at inner groove but over the whole LP recorded area.
Facts are the ones that has the " last word ".
If you decide not to bring those numbers then we could think that you are trying to deceive us either because your ignorance level on the subject or in porpose. In the first case that you are doing in an " inconsciente " way and no harm at all we can't say the same if is on porpose.
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
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 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 Dertonarm: Please makes things easy with out all useless bla-bla that means nothing and proves nothing.
Show/bring here the set up parameters for any of those especial tonearm geometry ( other than FR that you proved was a disater with your parameters. ) designs and then with those numbers we in this open forum and in front of all of us we can make the calculations a see if in reality exist significant ( that we can detect. ) lower distortions not only at inner groove but over the whole LP recorded area.
Facts are the ones that has the " last word ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " 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 rocket. "
this is a misunderstood, that's why exists Löfgren A and B where the highest diustortion at the last inner groove is different been lower on the Löfgren A solution.
So we have choices here at Löfgren's " house ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Tha's means at the last 1 seg. and not last 2-4 minutes as you states.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
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. |
and that figures of distortion were at the last inner groove, the last one.
Raul. |
My mistake. If we take a effective length say 260mm and the inner groove at 50mm ( 5cms. ) Löfgren B calculation gives 1.3% and Löfgren " A " 0.8% and this is an extreme case at inner grooves that we don't find very often.
Now, if we change the data input to force better " figures " at inner groove that could be in detriment of higher distortions in the other 90% of the remaining LP grooves. Our today LOMC cartridges are better trackers than many vintages and the MM/MI ones are champions on this regards so I can't see that " dramatic problem " you states because I just tested a recording with almost no blank grooves at the end and with the XV-1s I can't detect a higher distortion level and neither with the 20SS .
To much " cream on your bananas ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " with 4.5 cm to the hole - Löfgren B is here way over 2% tracking distortion " +++++
I don't know where you take or calculated that 2%, could you tell us?
in any of the net calculators ( enjoy the music, Vinyl Engine ) in a normal effective tonearm length of 258mm with an inner most groove at 45mm the distortion is lower than: 0.3% at the inner grooves with 0.67% between null points and with an average of 0.55% a lot better than what you states.
Dertonarm, everyone is asking here for your precise answers about especially those " special " set up with some specific tonearms.
If those " special " set up for specific tonearms comes with the same criterion you used on the FR then all we have to wait that those set ups have and gives us higher distortions a lot higher that anything else ( Including Stevenson. ), so what's the advantage to have higher distortions?
Don't you think that these higher distortions makes no sense?. The problem with all this is that you only " talk and talk " proving nothing, even that 2% you states comes from nowhere ( ghosts everywhere. ) till you shows. You goes around around around and till today ( for years. ) you never stop and put the finger right on " focus ".
Here in México people say: " in blind land the one-eyed is king ", unfortunately in this forum there are not so many blind persons as you thinked.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Thuchan, 'reducing the complexity' means to me not being able to deal whith it. If the result of this reduction is the reduction of 'çognitive dissonance' then
this is even worse. From your statement or hope:'there is
no need for a war' I may conclude that you are a nice person and a very optimistic one as well.
Regards, |
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 Genesis168: +++++ " What I have a problem is that there is no absolute. Raul is preaching absolutes. That s my problem. We have choices. " +++++
in mathematics and geometry is part of it there are no place for " subjective ", in our world: 2+2 always gives 4 and this is what I'm talking about. That you or any one want or would like that 2+2 could be 6 has no sense in the whole cartridge/tonearm set up geometry subject.
For you can understand what I posted in this thread you need to read and learn on the white papers by Graeme F. Dennes that you can find out in the net or download here:
www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4854
Read it one and again till you fully understand what you read and then come back on that " absolute " subject because right now ( with all respect ) seems to me that you don't have any idea on the real subject.
For we can have a productive discussion at least we have to be in the same " channel " because if I'm talking of apples and you don't have any idea what's an apple how can we agree on nothing?.
Do it a favor, please read those Dennes white papers and I'm sure that the " ligth " will shine for you or any one that read it. As a plus you will learn that the idea DT try to " sale " here about " especial " tonearm set up due to very " especial " tonearm geometry is totally false. Please remember that you need only three known parameters to make a cartridge/tonearm set up: effective length, overhang and offset angle: nothing more.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Genesis,
I totally agree. We all have choices. I chose a $50 arc protractor designed for my Schick arm. And it gives me the choice of L, B or S geometries. With the Koetsu, it is very difficult to see the inner null point because the body is so low, and the stylus so far back from the front of the cart. As I said, whatever protractor one chooses to use, it still boils down to eyesight and steady hands.
Now, if say DT, or any other member that has one, were to offer to let me try his, would I say no? No, I wouldn't. Heck, I might even be willing to pay a small rental fee....... |
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. |
04rdking, not a problem if you think it is not worth that coin. Some are happy with the protractor they printed out from vinyl engine. Some spend $20. Some might prefer to spend $200. So whats the problem here? What I have a problem is that there is no absolute. Raul is preaching absolutes. That s my problem. We have choices. If everything has absolutes, we will be all listening to the same system. |
Genesis168,
+++++"So Ford made the first car."++++++
Ford did NOT make the first car. All Ford did was start mass production.....
All this is very interesting. Personally, I wouldn't pay that much for a protractor. And with all do respect to DT and everyone else. It doesn't really matter how precise the instrument is. Even though the more precise the better. It still comes down to a persons ability to see where the stylus sits. And their ability to physically move it in micro increments. Then, tighten everything down and not move it while doing so. Just MHO.
DT, it does appear you have designed a very nice tool. |
Complexity is always a challenge in this world. If you decide to live in a more simple world (not a bad meaning at all) you better go for a one tonearm/one cart soltion. There is no need for changing the tires. Nevertheless if one wants to reach the capabilities of Genesis 168 being able driving a Honda as well as a Ford even on different tiers ( also feeling the difference) you may need a good garage or excellent tools.I learned that some of us, Raul too and me as well, are sitting in front of a complex world.
There might be two ways of dealing with complexity. Usually we try to reduce complexity heading for simple solutions. A side effect of this approach is also reducing cognitive dissonance - you start feeling better!
Another way is to develop solutions for different requirements and tackle various applications by using different methodologies. This is something - at least to my understanding - the Uni-Pro approach is aiming at in this special field.
In the end everyone becomes happy. The manufacturer of a gauge adressing requests of potential customers going for a simple solution as well as those multi-users or people wo really care about exact geometry in various application fields. This means: There is no need for a war - at least not in this thread... |
There are many truly fantastic stuff from Japan. I do own some too. What I was referring was their cheap mass market stuff with that rated 0.00000??THD as an example |
Dear Dertonarm, The most 'variations' relate to the lead
out groove; the distance to the spindle hole. So no need
to worry about the outer groove. The math. is,alas, not my
best subject but it seems to me that depending on the mentioned distance 'many' O points should be possible. From Raul's arguments however I can deduce just 2 possible O points in relation to the 'inside part' of the record:
L. A or L. B. The simplicity of a theory is of course an
virtue but Einstein had some criptic comment about that:
'but not simpler'. Ie. one seldom see any distance mentioned except the most probable(average or?).
I own records with the distance of 10-4,5cm.to the 'hole'.
I got this result by inspeting just 10 records.So I claim
no 'scientific reaserch' but assume that others my own even
more 'extended' distances.
Some'light' for this 'dark part' would be very appreciated.
Regards, |
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. |
Genesis168,
I am currently using an early 80s Pioneer turntable with early 80s Pioneer electronics (amps, pre with phono stage and headamp). They provide superlative reproduction of music. They have vanishingly low levels of distortion, and the headamp and amps are probably the quietest examples I have ever heard. And they are black too (except for the TT).
Lots of manufacturers had cheap stuff which doesn't sound great. That included mfrs from all over - not just from Japan. Some also had stuff which competes with the best out there today (and on an inflation-adjusted basis had prices to match the best of today (inflation-adjusted MSRP of the headamp would be in the range of $8-10k)). |
Dear Genesis168: +++++ " Yes, Lofgren might be the first according to you " ++++
no it is not according to me it is just that was that way.
+++++ " What if the clone "somehow" sounds better than the original? " +++++
I'm talking on lower distortions with the original, which sounds better is a subjective issue. As DT states this whole subject is one of the few where you can find objetivity: this is mathematics and you can change that. That a Ferrari runs faster than other car is no example for compare the tonearm/cartridge set up geometry.
I repeat again, in the Löfgren and clones solutions/equations you need three and only three input data for the calculations: tonearm effective length, most outer groove distance and most inner groove distance and is according these three numbers ( that you can choose as you want it. and for any reason you have. ) that you calculate the overhang and offset angle. For each one three input data set exist one and only one overhang and offset numbers.
Each time you change any of those three input data you change the overhang and offset calculations.
Well, all those calculations were made through Löfgren A or B equations/solutions. Today there is no other way, I mean no one take it the research time to create a new method or other equations level different from Löfgren.
What do you don't understand on this that's what I was posted one and again?, please show me where are my faults because if I'm wrong ( that could be, why not. ) I want to know it and appreciate your help or any other person help including DT help.
I'm here to share my experiences and know-how level and to learn from all and each one of you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Raul, according to you, everything else is a clone of the Lofgren. Fine. What if the clone "somehow" sounds better than the original? Like a Ferrari go faster than the Ford? But a Honda Accord will NOT drive like or become a BMW even you put Michelins on it. It will certainly drive better than those crappy Bridgestone or Firestone tires. |
Raul, yeah, perfect example you quoted. Yes, I can drive a Honda accord and change the tires from Bridgestone to Michelin. Yes the same car but ride differently. Can you get this? Yes, same car...honda accord but drives differently. Chenge some tires and get back to us if you feel the same ride comfort, handling etc. Changing curves it just like that.
Since you're so into distortion, get a pioneer. 0.00000001%thd. It means nothing. Yes, Lofgren might be the first according to you and the rest are clones? Yes, you're right. So Ford made the first car. So are all other cars are clones? Maybe. So does that mean everyone has to buy ford and not others? Comes back to my explaination. Not everyone likes hamburgers and fries. It's all different ideas nothing more than that.
Remember, in life, nothing is 100% except for death and your taxes. |
Dear Genesis168: IMHO maybe you don't understand very well the overall subject and what I posted in this thread about.
The main subject is not " if you don't think lofgren is the solution to all tonearm alignment " or what I think or what any other person/people think the fact is that those two Löfgren ( A/B ) solutions are the ones that exist and all the other " solutions ", including the solution you prefer ( it does not matters which one ), are only a copy/clon of those Löfgren equations.
In my last post before the one I sended to you I explain the Stevenson approach as an example on how we can manipulate/change the input data to achieve a different set up parameters but even in those cases the solution is still Löfgren, A or B but Löfgren.
Why is so complicated for you can understand something so simple?: there are no other solutions than Löfgren, what there are are different input data for the set up calculations.
Genesis168, examples: you go to a movie theatre named " Six Flags " to watch Avatar movie and next week you return to the same movie theatre to watch Black Swan, do you think that the name on that movie theatre ( everything the same ) changed or still named " Six Flags " ?, of course has the same name but different input.
You own a Honda Accord that comes with Bridgestone tires and today you decide to change those tires for Michelin: can this car tires change the model of your Honda from Accord to City/Civic?, no you still own a Honda Accord.
The same happen with Löfgren two solutions and like it or not like it to me or not like it to DT or not today we have to stay inside Löfgren A or Löfgren B solutions, that's all. There are no other solutions that gives you overall lower distortions.
As I posted: DT tryed in the past to prove exist a better solution for FR tonearms and when he posted the " new " set up parameters ( that he gives ) only showed higher distortions. What he is talking about again and again he never proved because he can't, what he made is only change the yesterday Avatar picture for today Black Swan one and that's all.
Any changes from Löfgren IEC/DIN only gives you overall higher distortions: it does not matter what you DT or I have to say about and this is with any pivoted tonearm and any stand alone cartridge. As DT said is simple geometry.
Genesis and DT: I'm not against the DT protractor or other protractors I'm only trying to help for what take me a lot of research and time to understand and learned it ( I'M a little " slow ". ) and that this proccess be more easy to any one of you in favor to improve your knowledge level on the subject.
+++++ " Were all different and we have a choice. Not everyone likes hamburgers and fries. " +++++
agree/yes, Löfgren A or Löfgren B are today our only choices. Easy, if you don't beleive this then ask DT that show you the " new " equations ( not input data. ) different from Löfgren ones that outperform it. If he shows that then we could have a third choice and certainly all of us shall win in favor of music sound reproduction at home!
DT, could you? at the end is you who proclam about. I'm sure that everyone would like to see Avatar in 4-D new pictures technology.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dertonarm, how did I miss this thread.
I guess I was doing more listening than reading.
It took me a bit to go threw reading all posts but I will say thanks for taking the time and designing such a tool, if it truely works the way you mention well what can anyone say but hats off to you and thanks.
Time will tell for sure.
I sure would like to get one to try and compare.
My current arms;
REED 2A 12 inch
TW 10.5 |
Nothing agianst the Dertonarm protractor it's looks like a wonderful tool but think I would probably wait and spend my money on this or down the road get both and don't look back.
http://www.sound-smith.com/cartright/index.html
Brad |
Raul, I don't think lofgren is the solution to all tonearm alignment. That's why other geometries exist. Dertonarm is giving us other options. If you are happy with lofgren them fine by me. If you are happy with the $20 protractor and mm cartridges fine but for those who choose to buy this tool, fine with me why argue and step all over something Were all different and we have a choice. Not everyone likes hamburgers and fries. You preach distortion so why not use a Japanese pioneer? |
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 Genesis168: That's why any decent protractor helps for the set up, that's why the 20.00 one that I'm using right now and the 2.00 that use Downunder works wonderful.
We need only that the choosed protractor be " aligned " by/under Löfgren approach, if fulfil this approach then that single protractor is all we need to make the set up in any pivoted tonearm and with any cartridge.
Downunder: got it?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear friends: I know for sure that many of us does not understand in deep the geometry cartridge/tonearm set up with both Löfgren solutions/equations and this fact is normal even some tonearm designers did not either, I know this because I asked with no certain responses.
The Löfgren equations, as I posted , are the only ones that exist that as a main targets are to calculate overhang and offset angle due to three input numbers ( tonearm effective length, most inner and outer groove distance. ), the calculation needs no other single input number and this fact is similar for the other clones/Copy solutions ( Baerwald, Stevenson, etc, etc. ).
We don't need any other geometry parameter to make a tonearm/cartridge set up: effective length, overhang and offset angle are all we need. Even we don't have to care on the null points.
The null points are calculated and used for other things than stylus-cantilever/tonearm geometry set up.
The Stevenson A cloned/solution ( adopted by several Japanese tonearm manufacturers. IMHO with out in deep analysis. ) is not something with " new " equations, Stevenson only wanted that at the inner groove the tracking error be cero so he taked one of the three input numbers ( in the Löfgren formulas. ): most inner grove distance as one null point and that's all.
This " solution " gives you almost cero tracking error/distortion in the last 30 seconds of a LP with a higher distortions on all the remaining LP surface than in any other " solution ".
Any one of us can change ( in the Löfgren equations. ) this same input number and Voilá! we have a " new " Perry/Jones/Lopez/etc solution!!!.
Till today, IMHO, no geometry set up solution beats the Löfgren ones.
The Löfgren solution passed ( and is. ) trhough a Optimization process ( minimax principle. ) to achieve the criterions that I posted in my Thuchan answer.
Today there is no known equations or process that outperform the Löfgren optimization formulas to calculate: overhang and offset angle in a pivoted tonearm in static playback conditions.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Well if Raul's tonearm works out as well as the phonolinepreamp, we can call it Edsel Probably it needs some extra steps Enjoy the music |
OK, so what are we talking here? Curves and distortion figures? If so, then just sell your turntable and go back to your 80's Japanese Pioneer amplifiers with vanishing levels of distortion and to your "perfect sound forever CD player". You will not have to worry about all these that would complicate your life and spend more valuable time time listening and enjoying to your music.
Tonearm and cartridge setup is a lot more than a good protractor. The variables are almost infinite. Vinyl playback is also very flawed. Most records not pressed properly to begin with. Spindle holes not centered (so where is the arc?)and few are perfectly flat (VTA anyone). Many records are warped some way or other.
Dertonarm here IMO is making a very good tool here for those who can afford. It will save you a lot of time and aggrevation trying to get things right. There are also different templates so you can try different curves. If you can afford it, by all means order one for yourself and save your precious time trying to find the perfect alignment on a little "mint" or "wally" and use that time enjoying the music. BTW, I got one myself.
All we are arguing here are merely numbers and nothing more.
So guys, relax..... and like Raul always says "enjoy the music" |
Addendum. My point was why intervene? This way we already
missed the answer about the status of the FR-64S. Is this
arm the real King or the false one. I have the strong impression that Raul keept his strongest arguments for later. But alas. I myself hoped for some result like:'the
King is dead... long live the Triplanar'. So to me it looks
like a much better scenario to organize a duel in which both partys will use their own tonearms instead of swords so we can after the event discuss about the qualitys like:
stiffness, effective lenght, effective mass (sic!),etc.
Regards, |
