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 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 Mesael, 'this is a free world, where nothing is (for)
free'. The logician hate such 'literary compositions' because of fear for the paradoxes. But 'your' free world
may also mean: you are free to buy anything you can afford.
I hope anybody can afford a good tractor but not necessarily the best one.
Regards, |
Totally agree with Thom... it would end up like buying a computer bundled with Microsoft software. Then someone would file antitrust case against the tonearm manufacturer or against the protractor maker...Hey, this is a free world, where nothing is free. |
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 Raul,
I don't disagree with you, but at the same time you have to accept the fact that we live in an ever specialized world. There are people like Dertonearm, Yip, etc. who spend their time focusing on protractors.
People like Frank Schroeder, Bob Graham, Tri-Mai, Joel Durand, et. al. spend their time thinking about, and improving their tonearm designs. I'd prefer that they do this, in light of the superlative aftermarket alternatives in alignment tools.
In my setup experience, the most difficult geometrical parameter involves getting the pivot-spindle distance correct. The machined indexing bar that Joel provides, along with Bob Graham's method are but two excellent solutions to this problem, and both give you an excellent head start on the alignment process.
Joel had considered the idea of providing a Mint protractor with the tonearm, but we see examples above of individuals who cannot relate to this wonderful tool.
So, rather than dictating the the tool to his customers, he provides them with an arc protractor printed on card stock. It serves as a no-risk introduction to his customers. If they don't relate to it, there's no loss. I recommended this solution to him, as my customers have responded very positively to this approach.
I think you know that nothing is free, and if he were to provide a Mint protractor it to his customers, it would still be accounted for in the pricing structure. Even with an OEM arrangment, the nature of markups mean tha the customer would pay more for the Mint than by buying it direct.
As you can see, there are people like Dmailer who see no reason to go beyond the card stock protractor. Can they do better? Likely. Do they care? Obviously not.
As manufacturers, it's not our position to dictate, but rather to recommend.
Would I criticize a tonearm manufacture from providing sophisticated alignment system with their tonearm? Absolutely not! Would I criticize them for not providing one? Same answer.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
Dear Raul,
as I am very keen with the Automotive industry I know that a lot of money is made in the After Sales Market. So why not in the Audio Industry? You are right usually you need to have some good tiers on your car when you pick it up at your dealer. But when you decide to equip it with flat runs you pay an exgra charge - if you are willing to do so.
I hope you have a good car at home :-) |
I find that the card style arc protractors are very accurate and perform better and are easier to use than other types of protractors. I have the Talea version one with the card style arc protractor provided and I feel that my cartridge is dialed in great. I have thought about getting the Mint protractor but not really sure that it would improve on what I have. It is doubtful though that I would ever justify $700 for a protractor unless I was changing arms and cartridges frequently. |
Dear Thom: +++++ " Up until this point, I have been recommending arc protractors for owners of all tonearms with adjustable headshell slots. The Mint combines availabilty and high quality. " +++++
I don't know how to tell this but IMHO it is a MAIN responsability of a tonearm manufacturer supply his customers that paid/pay multi K dollars for the tonearm with an accurate protractor in a way that we customers don't have to worried in any sense on that whole subject.
In the other side that a tonearm distributor ( like you ) support customers with advise on after market protractors could means that that manufacturer tonearm target about protractors are not achieved.
This fact is pity for we customers. This subject is like when you go to buy a car ( any ) then you paid for it but guess what?: your car comes with out tires, obviously that this makes no sense and certainly you or any one of us never be willing to buy a car with out tires or engine: so then why we accept that that tonearm comes " incomplete " ( with out tires/engine. ) and no one said a word about ( including audio distributors/sellers. ) but instead of make a claim to the tonearm manufacturer we are willing and exited and happy to buy/bought not only one after market protractors but several ones.
Maybe it is time that we customers could think to charge the tonearm manufacturer/seller where we buy/bought it the price for at least one after market protractor or ask to them that supply an accurate protractor with the tonearm we are buying.
I know that some of those tonearm manufacturers are reading this thread and I think their thoughts in the subject is a mut to and welcome!.
What do you think about?. Btw, I posted in a thread started by DT similar " worries ".
Btw, +++++ " So an experiment using the Unitractor and the Mint (note that I did not use the word "shootout") would have more validity. " ++++++
could be a learning exercise.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Not to undermine Mint LP, I always have a hard time using it. Since my audio room don't have window, and my eye sight not so good, I tried table lamp, flashlight on my mouth, and even head lamp. The 10X peak lupe doesn't help either, with its mirror template, it's very confusing. So Derto Uni protractor might be it. |
I agree. For someone like me who is more interested in listening to music at the best sonics instead of spending hours fiddling around with loupes and what not, ease of use is very important. I'd rather set up the cartridge spot on once and get on with the music. |
Hi Raul,
Not a lot of itme these days, but this thread was brought to my attention by a couple of customers.
Up until this point, I have been recommending arc protractors for owners of all tonearms with adjustable headshell slots. The Mint combines availabilty and high quality.
The Schroeder Reference, Reference SQ and DPS arms are a challenge, because different cartridges yield different effective lengths (I know you know this). I try to make it easy for my Schroder customers and I send them card-stock protractors made for the effective length that their cartridge yields.
After that, it's up to them if they want to order a Mint or a Wally, or whatever.
At my suggestion, the Durand Talea has a small nipple on the underside of the bearing. Joel supplies a machined aluminum bar that mates to the record spindle and the nipple to adjust the pivot-spindle distance to within about .004" (some intentional play in the record spindle hole due to turntable manufacturer variances). A quality protractor brings you to the last .004" by rotating the arm (or, on a Galibier, by adjusting the armboard with its vernier, fine adjustment).
I appreciate the heroic effort undertaken by Dertonearm. I don't take this lightly, but there are some big claims being made, and I want to separate the issue of chosen geometry from how well a tool achieves the geometry.
On the subject of geometry, I found the ad, and noted that the protractor allows for Baerwald, Loefgren, and Stevenson for both IEC and DIN (6 combinations). I must have misread an earlier post about another alignment geometry being employed.
So an experiment using the Unitractor and the Mint (note that I did not use the word "shootout") would have more validity. Only 6 protractors need to be made for it ;-)
There are some nice usability features on Dertonarm's design, and these should not be underestimated. The fixed position magnifying glass (set up for the focal length of the magnifier, it would appear), will help many.
So, everything counts when you're trying to design a new product. A more "accurate" tool that a large variety of users cannot effectively use is not as good as one that is slightly less accurate but more users can use to its full potential.
I need to make something clear. I am NOT saying that the Unitractor is less accurate. I am merely pointing out that ease of use is is an important feature. Nothing more.
Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier |
Dear Thom_mackris: Nice to hear from you again.
Your post " disturb " me on some ways.
You named Schoroeder and Talea tonearm where I understand you are a distributor, then you named protractors like the Mint and the one of this thread and of course you want to serve your customers in the best way so please permit me to ask ( thank's in advance for your answer. ): all these means that the protractors supplied with the Talea and Schoroeder tonearms are so non-accurate or non-user friendly ( or both ) that you as a customer's take care of are " obligated " to look for better after market alternatives? are so bad those own tonearm manufacturer protractors or have I a misunderstood here?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
|
So all this talk of alignment has got me wondering. Anybody know what alignment HW prefers on the 9" JMW's? Is it also his own by his ears thing or something standard? The supplied jig only has one null point, which I have thought to be odd. I don't have the budget now for the UNI but I might get the Mint for the Scoutmaster since I do not when I will have my new rig.
Y'all take it EZ,
Robert
|
Thom and Nandric: I know you want one! |
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. |
This may cause some perplexity in our forum but the most
people own just one TT, one tonearm and (can you believe this?) just one cart. They may be totaly ignorant about the
existence of something called 'Mint tractor' but dispite of
this (probable)fact they may need exactly this one. One is free of course to compare 'apples' with 'pears' but only in
the democratic societys. I am originaly from some communist
society so I know how dengerous comparitions are.
But I shoud think that even in such a society one will be
allowed to recommend to the 'glorious workers' and even the
'glorious party members' the use of a Mint protractor.
However in the cpitalist society were some persons are able
to extract from other people the so called 'surplus value'
it is possible to own many TT's, tonearms and even more carts. So this Dertonarm knows very well for whom his protractor is meant. But that he needs to do examination
after so many years since he got his degree is very amusing.
Regards, |
Dertonearm,
I'm extremely interested in this topic, as my owners are beginning to ask me about your new tool.
My first reaction is to have them buy one for me (for my Durand Talea, thank you) and I'll experiment with it and let them know. All kidding aside, I applaud your herculean efforts and the beautiful photos of the exquisite machining. My concern however is only with results. Any advantages of your tool fall into one of the following:
1. The precision with which this geometry can be implemented - can superior results can be achieved, or alternatively, can equivalent results can be achieved more easily. Easier is important to some, and "better" is important to everyone.
2. The superiority of your chosen alignment geometry
This is what I will base my recommendation on.
Before delving into the above questions, let ask you the following, on behalf of a customer who owns a Schroeder Reference. Can you confirm the following for me:
1. The protractor is "programmable" - coming with a set of some 30 templates to be used for common arms. Any arm not on the list requires a template costing $69. Is this correct?
2. Implication for Schroeder Reference owners. If the above is correct, then my customers with Schroeder references will need a template for each cartridge they use, due to non-standard stylus to cartridge mounting hole center. Is this correct?
-----
As I read through threads on the Mint LP protractor, I note how some of individuals struggle with viewing the stylus using the supplied loupe.
This issue is one that touches all alignment techniques involving one's having to view the stylus. It's not specific to the Mint LP, except perhaps because the Mint (like all arc protractors) tells you in no uncertain terms when you are off (by magnifying your error as you attempt to trace the arc). An addendum to the instructions would be helpful - telling you that there is no universal loupe, and that experimentation might be in order.
So, if you have freed individuals from having to use magnification to view the stylus, you have broken new ground and I applaud you.
Now this thread has gone off track with the discussion of the ideal alignment geometry. Of course it's important, but it needs to be kept distinct from the tool used to achieve it
UNLESS, you have arrived at an alignment you deem to be proprietary. If this is the case, then the perspective purchaser has only one way to implement that geometry - by purchasing your tool. I'm fine with that. Your research deserves to be rewarded.
So
what's my advice to my customer base? In plain and simple language, "it's your money and you take your chances".
Now, if you'd like to prove to the world that your methodology is superior - that someone can achieve better results with your tool over a well implemented arc protractor like the Mint LP (irrespective of geometry) - then I would propose one or both of the following experiments.
Experiment #1: Tell us the geometry you'd use for a world-class tonearm like the Durand Talea. We'll have Yip make up a protractor using this geometry and see which one best serves the music over a broad collection of records. The problem with this experiment is that the Mint LP might do a better job of implementing your geometry better, but we might not like the geometry.
Experiment #2: Implementing Baerwaald, Loefgren, and Stevenson with both your protractor and the Mint. This has the chance of giving us the broadest view - separating accuracy of implementation from geometry preferences.
Ultimately, all four geometries should be tested with both protractors, but I separated the experiments as I have, since I don't know your intellectual property considerations.
-----
If I appear to be holding your feet to the fire in this post, you are correct, but please realize that this is because I take my recommendations to my customers very seriously.
My initial impression of your beautifully made tool is that you have possibly selected a superior geometry - at least for individuals who listen to a large percentage of records that extend into what is today, the lead-out section. I've never been a fan of favoring inner groove performance at the expense of having higher distortion over the bulk of the stylus' path. One that further looks to bias the alignment beyond Loefgren's equations by extending the LP inward is something I'd be wary of.
There's no free lunch
other than a linear tracker, of course, and even that's not "free"
except from a geometry perspective.
Now, I would love to be proven wrong - that you have both (a) created a better mouse trap, and (b) that you have selected a superior alignment.
Lastly, now that you are a manufacturer, what is your real name and what city are you based out of?
Good luck in your new venture.
Regards,
Thom @ Galibier |
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. |
Congratulations Dertonearm on your implementation of such a comprehensive instrument for cartridge and tonearm configuration. It looks like a lot of thought went into design and production. And thank you Syntax for the splendid photos of the tool in its environment.
Could you say a comment or two on what is the "Azimuth template"?
Is it possible to post or share the manual on-line without releasing proprietary information?
Thank you for carrying on the tradition of continued improvement for analog technology. |
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 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 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. |
Dertonarm
My compliments to you for your protractor, it looks to be thought out to the extreme, a mature product, ultra precise & easy to use. |
D.,
Do you know which alignment works best for dynavecotr 507mk2?
Thanks |
What is the "ULTRA PRECISE P2S-positioning instrument w/new features, matching the UNI-Protractor system" that is referred to at the end of the UNI-Protractor advert? |
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. |
@Dertonarm
I have the Clearaudio jig. It has 4 different setups including the standard IEC one. They contend that the 72mm is better for most LPs because they have a long lead out groove.
By the way, does your jig work with cartridges with very low bodies? Like a Grado Statement1? It is very tough to see the cantilever because of the square body hiding the cantilever from the front. |
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 Daniel,
I have a great respect for your work and I've never questioned your hard earned knowledge.
I hope to understand my queries resulting by daze & excitement when I've heard that there are more parameters of concern about the tonearm's geometry in the search for a more sophisticated integration combining some physics to geometry.
I'm still quite perplexed for I can't find those "simple (?) & basic (!) engineering approaches" but I'm trying really hard to become an adherent of your findings and comprehend your meticulous sense of premium execution of every plan & any project.
I respect your wright to insulate your method as a matter of business ethics & I'm reluctand to pushing more this chapter that is full of mystify sequences (for me at least).
I suppose its time for faith or rejection.
I ... need my time for shure.
Kind Regards |
|
Dear Mesael, thank you - especially for your good minded advise ..;-) ... I really appreciate.
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 Daniel,
Good job. Keep cool, you're a manufacturer now. Remember what they said about better mousetrap ?
Good luck, |
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: Like you: just waiting for.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Raul,
To where I want to go with this subject, it is surely has to do with the claims of new findings, other than the known ones.
Is it my imagination or someone talks about that ?
I'm not pretending that I know something different from you, but I was hopping for a clarification about those guru settings & uknown methods of unique geometry alignments...(?) |
Direct & Straight
You are my man ! |
Dear Dertonarm: I think that the IEC and DIN subject is in someway " academic " because as you can read in the SAEC 308SX example the distortion " figures " in between are so small that I think no one but a bat could heard it.
So, for me Löfgren B is all what I have to say about and the IEC only for " calm in mind " and nothing else.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Geoch: Graham unique?, well it is the same with SME V or other " unique " tonearm/cartridge geometry set-ups.
IMHO the only " unique " that has all those " unique " set ups are higher " unique " distortions and that's all.
Geoch, you can explore new things in the subject ( I love to explore and that's why I'm where I'm. ) but here is only mathemathics and only if you have a proved mathematical new " process " could change what we have today on that subject.
This is not that you can do it " by fault " or because " you think " is better some other way.
Now and IMHO, like with the Graham and other " unique " tonearm set ups: that a higher generated distortions likes you or likes other people does not means is right: it means only that you and those other people likes HIGHER DISTORTIONS and that's all.
You don't have to believe me, please put those " unique " tonearm set up ( any ) parameters in a " calculator " ( like the VE one. ) against the öfgren B ( IEC ) one and you can confirm what I'm saying.
Goech, distortions are not only gernerated by cartridge/tonearm tracking or tonearm/cartridge geometry set up, things are more more complex than that.
There are several other factors that " determine " any tonearm/cartridge quality performance level, this subject already was discussed in many other threads in the past.
Between those other factors are: type of tonearm pivot bearing, bearing build material, tolerance level on that bearing system, tonearm effective length, tonearm build materials, cartridge whole characteristics on compliance/stylus shape/MC or MM design/body build material/cantilever build material/etc/etc, arm board build material, etc, etc, and I can go on and on on this factor list.
I don't know where you want to go. Intrinsic tonearm resonances and cartridge resonances has almost nothing to " see " with those geometry equations.
IMHO if a tonearm was designed with a " unique " geometry set up equations on mind with greater distortions due to that geometry " unique " set up and even if you like it for me that tonearm design is a faulty one.
A good tonearm design must left ( very clear and precise. ) that you can discern between different set ups and not only that but that you can be aware that a higher distortion geometry equations set up almost always have to sounds with those higher distortions quality performance level, other way IMHO that tonearm design is not a good design.
Geoch, IMHO here it is not what we like but what is wrong or good/right.
This time and in this subject I'm with what is right. What other people could think on the same subject does not affect what is right because you can't change ( for the better ) that: 2+2=4.
IMHO your example of Technics/B&O has no aplication in this subject because we are not speaking of technology but mathematics: elemental mathematics for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm,
NO !
I don't appreciate to read behind your lines !
What is supposed to said by my cantilever if you accept the usual logic of only this matters & not the arm's geometry ?
What's the point of providing individual templates if you declare the usual & known alignments ?
Please be straight & specific about your thoughts to the subject this time. To confusing my or perhaps and others mind is not your will I would like to believe.
PS :
I'm greatful for your effort to offer this protractor to the community,
but remember that your act for doing this, was directed by your commitment to this hobby & your will to help us. |
Dear Raul, thank you for your contribution.
Your words exactly were my belief in so many years.
Please read my argument with Dgad about this subject at the link below :
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1285867301&openflup&35&4#35
But I'm sure we are missing something.
Again, how we can explain the Phantom's unique alignment ?
By default ?
What is the point of concern in a tonearm's geometry to dictate it's prefered form of alignment ?
Our ears are the final judge, yes, but I don't think that the result is not predictable. It must be at least one crucial point in arm's geometry that can direct us to choose
what is best.
OK. but even then, how can anyone find the special & unique individual alignment that is different from all the B or L or S, IEC or DIN that we know how to calculate ?
Maybe the listening tests are cheaters and the only way for pure & neutral performance is the graphic diagram of distortion & tracking error. I don't argue about this.
But then, we must all stay at the side of Technics amplifiers with 0.003% THD and B&O speakers with perfectly flat freq. response.
It is not that bad to explore something new, even if it is radical and going against our traditional view.
It's the fun part that opens our horizon to new possibilities & maybe offers new & unfound pleasures.
Gullible & optimistic am I ? |
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: That general acceptance on Baerwald is IMHO a wrong way to go, nothing I repeat nothing outperform the overall low distortions ina Löfgren B geometry set up: it does not matters what other people could say or already said it.
These are the parameters for Löfgren B ( IEC ) SAEC 808SX: overhang: 17.729 with an offset angle: 22.914.
Distortion between null points: 0.424% with an average distortion: 0.366%.
Against DIN that has higher distortion figures: 0.469 and 0.376%
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Geoch: IMHO the alignment geometry alternative we can choose for cartridge/tonearm set up is " independent " in which tonearm we will make the set-up.
Löfgreen, Baerwald, Bauer, Stevenson, Pisha, etc, etc, set up geometry equations are mathematical/abstract " items " that the only tonearm factors that take in count is that the tonearm must be a PIVOTED and its effective lenght and that's all.
If you or any other person ( like the Sansui colaboration you posted. ) thinks in different way this kind of thinking IMHO is only a misunderstood or only a false marketing " tool ".
Goech, all geometry options for set up that exist ( till today ) has its foundation on Löfgren equations that comes from 1938 ( when your SAEC/Graham does not even exist. ) and no one option outperform the Löfgren B one.
Yes, with the SAEC tonearms if we follow the manufacturer set up information with many cartridges it is a pain for the headshell wires set up and that SAEC manufacturer set up advise does not gives any real advantage.
Löfgreen B IEC is very good option and has the best/lower overall distortion. The DIN one gives you a lower inside grooves distortions but with a higher distortions outside the inner grooves: I don't like it, my take is that good tonearm with good cartridges are very good trackers and I prefer lower distortions overall against a tiny lower inside grooves distortions that I'm sure you can't detect because the difference in distoprtion level between IEC and DIN is extremely small.
Anyway, the real subject is IMHO that you can use any geometry equations option it does not matters which tonearm you own.
Nothing impede that you can test Löfgren B or Löfgren A ( that's similar to Baerwald with the same offset angle/overhang. ) or Stevenson set up and decide which set up please you.
Be carefully when doing that because for you can hear the real differences everything reside/foundation in how accurate you made each one geometry option set up. If there are differences on accuracy options set up then the differences you will hear will be because those different inaccuracies levels.
If I was you, with your SAEC or any other pivoted tonearm, my choose will be Löfgren B (IEC. ) but you can choose whatever you want, it's your call.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Thank you all for your kind responses.
Unfortunatelly the users manual can not help but rather making the situation much worst & perplex.
If I get it right ...
Dertonarm is the only one who suggest a different alignment than the Baerwald IEC. It seems to me that he explores some new or underestimated parameters in tonearm geometry and obviously he discovers a relationship between the alignment for the least tracking error & the alignment for better control of resonance for any given tonearm !
Every other guy in my search, -all of them- are following the usual Baerwald IEC :
John Elison about SAEC WE-308 :
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/78/788115.html
Wally Malewicz suggesting : "to use dedicated W-tractor for Rega Arms , but be prepared to twist Cartridge in the Headshell"
Allen Wright that from 1982 becomes the Australian importer claims about the WE-407/23 :
"...and am actually responsible for the /23 part of the model number. It stands for the 23 degree offset (bend) angle of the headsheel that is correct for the two point "western" arm/cartridge aligment as used today.
The original 407 used the non standard SAEC offset angle that was much less than 23 degrees, and only offered correct alignment at the inner grooves of an LP. I had them make the arm with 23 degrees offset angle to match "our" alignments and be saleable in the West"......
Allen Wright for the SAEC WE-308 :
..... "I actually don't have a 407/23 as I sold them all way back, I got a mint NIB 308 a couple of years ago and use it - with the cartridges weirdly twisted in the headshells to get the angle correct"
As you can see..........there is no doubt about the general acceptance for the Baerwald IEC standard alignment geometry.
I hope not to fall far from topic, but maybe this is a good opportunity, once the SAEC WE-308 has rundown to torture his users for the last 27 years.
Thus Im wondering if the time has come for Dertonarm to release some knowledge to the rest of us...
But are we ready to accept his "paradox" findings ?
Can we handle any truth beyond the graphic diagrams ?
So far the listening tests are giving credit to him for his new FR64S' alignment geometry & I can't think that he acted randomly without a very good reason behind this !
Is it really just the Offset Angle that determines the chosen geometry ? I doubt.
Thank you for your patience & my apologies for my ignorance. |
Dear Geoch, I have good news and bad news reg.SAEC.
The good news is that you can download the user manual for
the WE-308 NEW from Vinyl engine. The bad news is that there is no mention of the zero points by the specifications. I wrote there 61/89 but have no idea where I got this info from.
Your quote from the VA is probable from Kessler& Pisha;
Tonearm Geometry and Setup (Audio, January 1980). They
suggest to use SAEC geometry and setup. If I am well informed ony the WE-407/23 allows 'the usual' geometry (aka
Baerwald).
Regards, |
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, 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. |
