Seems to me that it is no better example of the Red Herring fallacies, that Atmasphere linked, than Dan_ed.
WSe are talking here on tonearm bearing not if the Talea performs better than a triplanar or not.
Well, we can't be surprised coming from a Talea dealer.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Mike: +++++ " it is the micro and nano wiggling following the groove unimpeded that gives it the advantage over a fixed/gimbaled bearing pivoted arm which on the micro and nano level cannot follow the groove as well. " +++++
IMHO the one that " rides " the recording grooves are the cartridge not the tonearm.
The main purpose of a tonearm ( even if you see it as " ridiculous ". ) is to hold the cartridge because the cartridge alone can't play.
What next?, that the cartridge could ride-free. Do you think that a bearing friction as low as 4mcg. ( like in the Technics EPA-100MK2 ) permit that ride-free condition?, IMHO certainly yes.
Which advantage has any unipivot against a fixed bearing tonearm like that one ? , IMHO none other than disadvantages: you speak of " the micro and nano wiggling ... " and is that micro/nano work the one that unipivots IMHO not solve yet.
You siad ( or Lewm. ) that the azymuth subject and unipivot rattle at bearing is solved and yes a priori is solved because many of us can't detect distortions that came from there. IMHO these to subjects ( azymuth changes and rattle at the pivot. ) exist there and were " controled " at some level but does not disappear and IMHO still have its own influence ( at that micro/nano level. ) on the cartridge/tonearm performance.
These two issues ( in a well fixed bearing tonearm design. ) just does not exist.
Now, IMHO things are a little more complex that only unipivot against fixed tonearm bearing designs. Let me put you some examples:
everyone knows the Telarc 1812 recording ( that I use through my whole test process. ) that not only has a high velocity recording levels but that those recorded HVL were mainly at the inner grooves part of the LP.
I own unipivots and fixed bearing tonearms. Well the B&O MMC2 cartridge mounted on the Grace G-945 ( an unipivot and removable headshell design ) with a 15grs. headshell " pass " cleanly the 1812 recording.
The Audio Technica AT-20ss mounted in the AT-1503MK3 ( a fixed and removable headshell design. ) pass the 1812 test with applomb too.
But, if we take the Colibrí on the Grace one or the XV-1 on the AT one: no one pass the 1812 tests .
These examples tell me that we are on the cartridge " hands ", it is the cartridge the one that " stay " or not in the groove and not the tonearm ( of course that the tonearm is important in this and other regards but it is only an " slave " that works for what the cartridge commands. ).
I don't have a Talea on hand or other today unipivot tonearm design but for my whole experiences and in deep tests about I can tell you for sure that with some cartridges one or the other tonearm will pass that test and with others just can't.
Now, IMHO other than those two subjects that I touched at the begin of this post other issue is that in some way or the other is more easy to design/handle on production an unipivot than a fixed bearing one.
Anyway, as Lewm and Stanwal pointed out: a good design with the right execution ( either design. ) works fine but I prefer a dead steady tonearm design that has not fight against its inherent unstabilities that cause tiny distortions ( normally is better to go " along " the gravity's forces, especially when what is happening at stylus tip and groove level (micro/nano) is so complex and full of " fierce " tracking forces and even temperature. ) but this is only my opinion and as you and other opinions the preferences are different.
Yes Nandric, our tonearm design is not an unipivot one.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Hiho and other unipivot advocates: Some of you name it the " very low friction " in vertical/horizontal planes the unipivots have as an advantage but till today no one of you ( including the dealer ) posted any low friction spec/figure on any unipivot tonearm.
I posted those 4mgrs. as bearing friction for that EPA100MK2 ( and other Technics models. ), so it could be interesting for all of us to know these 4mgrs bearing friction compares against those " very low bearing friction " unipivot specs.
I hope some of you could help about and come with that unipivot advantage spec/measure.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
+++++ " And what's wrong with that? " ++++
nothing, evryone is free on his choices.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: +++++ " Still, I have to explain the ethereal quality of the Talea that I heard locally. ............. the Talea "works". In thinking about what I heard from it, I came to the tentative conclusion that in part I was responding to highly euphonic "imperfections" that I have heard before with unipivots in my own system. " +++++
at least a " sight " on the unipivots. Halcro, got it?
As I agree and posted: nothing wrong with that, our each one choice.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Hiho: You are right, the majority are dual points. The first two points design I know was the one from Audiocraft 3300/4400 from what born the Graham.
All what " surrounded " a cartridge playback is so imperfect that an unipivot ( true one. ) design can't hyandle. We have to think on the forces around LP off center holes along non flat records along what the stylus tip has to negociate on the grooves. A unipivot design is at mercy of all those imperfections along the tracking tip forces that due to its inherent unstability preclude as a " best " bearing choice. This not means it can't works because we have several examples that said it works but the penalties are additional distortions that a fixed bearing ones does not have because that regards.
The cartridge needs at least in the tonearm: stability, dead stability because it is surrounded for to many unstabilities elsewhere.
What like we at home?, IMHO it depends on what kind and level of distortions we accept, which kind of trade-offs we are willing to accept.
Of course that some way or the other we have to have an objective method/process to be aware of different kind of distortions and different level of those distortions.
Many of us are not aware of those distortions and like what we are hearing with out note that what we are hearing is full of distortions.
As I said I prefer a fixed bearing pivoted tonearm against an unipivot but this is me.
My take is that whatever happen between the stylus tip, grooves and record and recording imperfections the tonearm task is to stay steady and neutral to those " movements " adding nothing that put additional " problems " to the cartridge very hard task.
Lewm, lowering by design thgose unipivots issues does not menas disappeared or that has no influence, its means only that the problems are only a little better under " control " but its influence is always there.
The fixed bearing design is perfect?, certainly not nothing is perfect but is more cartridge's friendly and this fact makes an overall difference everything the same.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
This is what I posted:
+++++ " Do you think that a bearing friction as low as 4mcg. ( like in the Technics EPA-100MK2 ) permit that ride-free condition?, IMHO certainly yes.
Which advantage has any unipivot against a fixed bearing tonearm like that one ? , IMHO none other than disadvantages: you speak of " the micro and nano wiggling ... " and is that micro/nano work the one that unipivots IMHO not solve yet. " ++++++ and this was posted by Hiho:
+++++ " The problem with unipivot is, obviously, not about lack of movement but TOO MANY planes of movement, " +++++
any tonearm designer is freedom to choose the pivot bearing type and this fact is out of discussion.
IMHO a unipivot design is the " worst " choice for a pivot tonearm because its inherent unstability that's a main subject to permit not only that the cartridge rides the grooves but that that same unstabilities ( in all planes. ) add minute distortions on the cartridge/tonearm quality performance ( I'm not talking here if you like or not those distortions, this is not the subject: what you like or I like has no importance here. ).
The first issue in a unipivot design is try to fix what can't be fixed and I mean fixed not almost fixed.
I asked: what advantages gives an unipivot/dual point tonearm against a fixed bearing design ( gimball, jewell or what ever )on that specific regards?, my answer is none but disadvantages.
Do you think that the cartridge ( at microscopic level. ) only moves in horizontal direction?, certainly not it moves in all directions and all those cartridge random movements only excited the unipivot unstabilities more.
Maybe you think that the side-weight, oil damping and weigth a top is enough to fix the problems in an unipivot but certainly no.
In the other side and this is my opinion as an audiophile: why choose an inherent faulty type pivot bearing and try to fixed when exist other pivot bearing types where you have to fix nothing?, makes no common sense to me especially that can't gives us any advantage even if its unstabilities are truly fixed ( ideal world ). So: in favor of what can we choose unipivots tonearms to achieve performance cartridges levels of excellence.
Yes, a cartridge quality performance level does not depends only in the tonearm bearing type and at " random " through the tonearm design could be that those unipivot unstabilities bearing inherent distortions on playback could be more or less hide, but still there.
A cartridge ask for a extremely fast tonearm response to the different movements ridding the LP grooves, you can imagine a race car in a circuit where stability on the road curves ( one after one after one all in different directions. ) is a must to have:
in the race car there are several parameters/factors/car build characteristics that help the car stay on the " road " it does not matters how " agressive " were those "road " directions changes " ( at high velocity where the driver has control on that speed. ) in the other side the cartridge/tonearm has no control over " recording velocities " and the cartrridge movements are at random: in a fixed bearing pivot tonearm the cartridge is secure because has no single " free movements in all planes " as an unipivot that can't recovery fast as need it/asked by the cartridge, those very tiny movements that styll exist on unipivots/dual preclude to attain what the cartridge asks in the same way and with the applomb of a fixed bearing tonearm type. A priori the unipivots/duals have no unstabilities because those unstabilities were already fixedbut dear gentlemans that " fixed " was at macroscopic level not where really matter that's at microscopic stylus tip ridding grooves.
To all that we have to add all the LP imperfections as LP's hole off-set and several waves on the vynil ( between others. )
If some of you with unipivots/dual and fixed bearings tonearms have a method/process to detect trhough real music LPs different kind of distortions then you can be aware of the tonearm bearing distortions between an unipivot/dual and a fixed bearing tonearm design because this specific subject. The added distortions exist but not easy to detect with out specific tests.
Now, from the point of view of what we like everything is 100% subjective and each one of us have different preferences on tonearms, but this is not the subject.
Of course that I can be wrong on the whole subject or maybe I could missed something but today this is my take.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Hiho: Things IMHO are really more complex that what you posted or to that DO review.
I like to " see " things not only more in deep but where things happen: stylus tip/tracking grooves. As I said what almost all people see as " solved/fixed " unipivot unstabilities are really only at macro level but not at micro/nano levels where the unipivot simple has no time to recovery to take and execute the next cartridge " order " where a fixed bearing design IMHO is the best " slave " and best friend the cartridge is asking for.
+++++ " the positives outweighs the negatives. " +++++, well IMHO a fix bearing tonearm design has no discernable " negatives ".
Btw, thw whole subject is not only azymuth unstabilities but any single one around in all planes.
Statements like this with out any objective explanation is in the best case a misunderstood on the unipivot bearing type behavior and is something like if I say ( talking on motion cars. ): " the cycles will be the way to go and the ultimate design approach and stick by that ":
+++++ " unipivots will turn out to be the ultimate tonearm design approach and stick by that. " ++++
why is that? what makes the differences sole by the tonearm bearing type?, here we can say: " hey I like it that way " and if said it: yes, why? and probably the answer will be: " I don't know but I like unipivots ".
I think we have to be or to take a little more serious our hobby or at least try or intent to understand it even if we like a different approach. Please remember that what we like is no important when we are talking in objective terms.
I'm not against Mike or other unipivot advocates I'm questioning that: " I like it " with out foundation in objective terms in that specific tonearm bearing pivoted design, with no single explanation.
Seems to me that for some of you this unipivot subject is the " today fashion " just like the 12" long tonearms that gives no real advantages ( but disadvantages ) to the cartridge ridding: just think that the cartridge needs extremely fast response from the tonearm that depends on the pivot and from the stylus tip distance to the tonearm pivot. A 10" tonearm has a faster response over a 12" ( everything the same. ): don't you think?, remember that a tonearm must works in favor of cartridge grooves ride as better and faster respond to cartridge needs as better that tonearm.
I'm not questioning that a cartridge/unipivot combination likes any one of us over a fixed bearing cartridge combination because this quality performance level depends on many factors where the pivot tonearm bearing type is one of those factors.
I don't know the whole method/process that Mike, you or any other person have to detect in a precise way distortions and to discern from where that distortion comes but I can say for sure that if we don't have that method/process to be aware about all what we have to say on the pivot subject has almost no validity other that " I don't know but I like it ".
I hope some of you have a better answer than that.
Anyway, I think that from my part was enough and in the other side the thread helps to know what each one of us " think " on the issue.
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Halcro. Sooner or latter you will " discover " ( no ) better yet you will discern about " good sound " with distortions ( as the one you are hearing. ) and good sound with out distortions.
You need practice tobe aware and discern about but this needs not only a method/process to do it but a " new way " of thinking on the audio subject: new excellence level targets. I hope sooner or latter you will be there, good lucl on that regards.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Mike: The subject with Dan is not if he is correct or not the point is that that is not what we are under discussion.
Anyway, every one can post whatever he want.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear friends: Well seems that there are not precise measures on an unipivot bearing friction level. I wonder from where came that " very low bearing friction ", I think we need this date.
In the mid-time could be interesting that we can think in a unipivot bearing characteristic as " similar " to a tip-toe/cone feet and what it happen around, here we can read about:
http://www.soundstage.com/maxdb/maxdb200207.htm
so seems that this kind of unipivot bearing is a distortion focus in many ways. I know that some of us like some kind of distortions but IMHO I think that lowering distortions or at least not adding more helps to be truer to the recording.
Of course that Lewm is not " buying " nothing but through his experiences he noted a " signature " that I call: distortions.
Yes, it is true that there is no perfect tonearm yet but if we follow analyzing unipivots IMHO this type of bearing design is " surrounded " by higher and more ( different ) distortions that a fix bearing design.
That some of us likes to live with those higher distortions means only that : that likes higher distortions but not that is a better bearing type design and some of us here are talking not on what we like ( as Mike. ) but what is wrong/worst or not through a bearing tonearm type design.
I wonder why some of you can't for a " second " try to be objective or think on objective terms? why can't take-off the subjective " cap " ?.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Hiho: Due that you stated: +++++ " A unipivot can do that easily with very little friction..... " ++++++
even that no one posted a number/figure/spec on that unipivot bearing friction I would like that you think if that's possible: when all the tonearm weight is concentrate at one point.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm: I can't understand your question because a pivoted ones are either an unipivot or a fixed bearing one. In the other side if I remember I did not posted nothing in that sense, I only posted the Technics fixed bearing friction spec and that's all.
During our tonearm/cartridge design research/tests we been aware that exist a boundary ( that depends mainly on the cartridge tracking habilities. ) where a " very low bearing friction " is no more an advantage. The cartridge " ask " some kind of control when due to the tracking grooves demands and whole LP imperfections under playback conditions it's going " crazy/out of self control " ( as a race car that by its inertia wants to goes out of the road on curves. ), VTF/AS and bearing friction are the main helpers about. This is really a thought subject on pivot tonearm design, obviously that VTF is the major helper but not always enough. We have to remember that we need that the cartridge stylus tip stay always at the groove and main differences between quality performance level on cartridges came from this " stay in the groove " subject.
Btw, looking at the cartridge stylus tip needs during playback tell us that not only in theory but on real circumstances the AS that some of us diminished is a misunderstood and IMHO a mistake.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Syntax: I, for one, agree with you. In many ways I posted the same with different words on other threads. Although I think something has to be added and that " something " is our self.
IMHO it is not enough that the audio system has the resolution need it it is a must that we already be trained first to be aware ( example ) of distortions , different ones, and to discern it as distoritons and not part of the music. This needs that we been trained about.
It helps that we use a R2R as reference/comparison?, certainly yes if we are trained too to discern on the own R2R distortions: like odd generated R2R odd harmonics.
It is not an easy overall task to be " there " where you I assume are and I assume because this is the third time that I read from you posts on this specific critical and don't understood yet subject.
Maybe my system is not the penultimate in resolution against a lot of other systems out there altrhough I have a specific training on that subject that help me on my opinions. I let you know an example of what you posted that's happening in the " last times " in that MM long thread:
++++ four-five ( maybe more ) persons that posted there have a " die for " attitude with two-three MM cartridge models from the same manufacturer. These guys own very different audio systems ( and I mean : Different. ) and all of them are in agree of the " great cartridges " performance characteristics. Those cartridges are at five, six and seven steps down the same line top of the line cartridge that some of them does not like.
Due to their posts they " force " me to buy/borrowed and test all those cartridges ( I own the top of the line too. ) and after that I give my opinion about that was way different an almost contrary of what those guys found out.
I stated and telling why those cartridges performance were full of distortions against the top of the line one and other top of the " family " cartridge.
Far from try to understand why I posted what I posted they " hide " under their " shared findings " ( thinking this supported each to the other opinion. ) thinking that the one wrong in this " stage " was me because no one of them be allowed to identify the distortions I posted and obviously can't discern about. This cartridge episode put some of them " angry " with me.
What happen there?, exactly what you said: no system resolution ( at least not the one need it for. ) and no training to be aware of some kind of distortions. +++++
This happen every single day and happen coming even from persons with KKKKK$$$$ systems where exist almost non specific training about.
A KKKK$$$$ system is IMHO warranty of nothing other than KKK$$$$$. What IMHO is almost a warranty even with modest audio systems is each one knowledge/skills level: this extremely PERSONAL characteristic/training is what makes differences and it is what gives " weight " to each one of us opinions: not the audio system it self.
Try and want to follow supporting any audio subject on 100%/full subjective point of view goes IMHO aginst our hobby.
Subjectivity IMHO is only the " mediocrity's mother " ( no I'm not saying any one of us are mediocre people but thinking in that way create: mediocrity. ) where the AHEE belongs and that's why the AHEE never never promote a touch of " objectivity ".
A " touch of objectivity " even a tiny one put " on light/shine " all the audio mediocrity out there where ( that 95% of the people are unaware of it. To convenient to the AHEE. ) if the AHEE could ( only on my dreams unfortunatelly. ) promote " objectivity " I can asure you that the 95% of the audio manufacturers must disappear in its today level.
Don't you think that that should be great in favor of MUSIC and in favor of each one of us audio system enjoyment and where we can understand for sure what each one is talking about?
Anyway, this thread left at least something to think about unipivot tonearms characteristics that maybe some of us never thinked in the past. Thank's Manitunc.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Audiofeil, you make me laugh: good!!!!!!
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Syntax. Obviously that 95% of reviewers an audio dealers must disappear too.
Audiophiles too?, NO they are the ones that put their money to make AHEE " survive " !!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Lewm On high-end always is more easy to talk on subjective terms:
what can you argue when some one tell: I like it?, yes you can argue whatever but that " I like it " is the discussion " end ".
This subjective attitude hide the " audio cancer " and no one want to know which kind of cancer already has.
Instead, when we put some touch of objectivity we can show to other persons why he is wrong or why he is right too and even why agree with.
I'm not in favor of " pure objective " against " pure subjective " attitude but a mix of both but with good objective foundation.
Even in objective terms always exist " the best " and no one want to know that what they own are far from be the best even if they think is the best because what they paid for it or for whatever reason.
So the people feel " comfortable " when no one can " touch " their audio systems subjectivity " affair " protect them or at least that is what some thinked about.
Lewm, that's why many people have " problems " with my opinions when I " naked " their systems and when I did that I did it not to show/exhibit the audio system but for the people understand where in reality are seated and through the time could take a " better "/alternative road, I always try to help and many times we have to put " the finger where it hurts ".
Btw, people said that in subjective terms " the best " does not exist I support that exist that " the best " is there although the explanation is not only wide but needs absolute " open mind " to discuss about.
Yes on your questions about cartridge compliance issue.
And, unfortunatelly, the beat goes on!!!!!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
I posted:
+++ " It helps that we use a R2R as reference/comparison?, certainly yes ... " +++
I think I was plain wrong, certainly does not helps because a important part of the LP recording process is not on the tape, example: RIAA eq de-emphasis, cutting lathe amplifier added distortions to the process, vinyl pressing and the like.
For we can know what we are loosing through playback LP on an analog rig we need to differentiate between these two 2 stages " after the tape information.
Yes, a R2R give us a picture of what is the sound with out those two stages process where signal is heavy degraded.
So, IMHO that kind of comparison: R2R against LP playback at home is more " academic/retoric " than a useful one tool.
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Atmasphere: +++++ " I'm just trying to get the LPs to sound as close to the master as I can. " +++++
well, IMHO the best you can do it is to be nearest to what is on the LP grooves that in the records you produce/produced you know what is what is on the LP grooves and this advantage you have help to fine tunning your system on that regard.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
For the ones as me that don't produce records/LP the way to go and critical issue is what Syntax pointed out:
+++ " System and with what kind of records (with Diana Krall for example it is not really easy to rate something)..." ++++
the choice of those recordings ( analog ) is vital for those comparisons, master tapes are useles on this regard.
Now, if what we are testing/under bench are audio items not related to our analog rig the IMHO digital source ( native DVDA/SACD recordings. ) is a great choice and even better than analog master tapes ( R2R ).
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Hiho: I like choices too and I'm not married with any audio subject.
About that " very low bearing friction ": the main subject to me is not if you or other people have it( I really don't care about. ) but that you and other people are " spreading " as an advantage that LBF and my first question to my self is: hey where that statement came?
IMHO and when we are discussing something of interest for several persons we can't ( certainly we can as almost all of us used to do it in forums. ) spread information with out any single " reference "/foundation.
How can we " validate " what other person said it if ( even if had it . ) the persons does not gives any " foundation " to his statements?
I don't agree any more with that common: " Paul is correct " with out any explanation on : why is correct? because I say so? or the more common " I like it " with no additonal explanation.
I know that this is a free forum about but we have to think that at least we all need to understand what the other pérson said or at least be near of it.
In the case of that LBF I think that the spec/number is important because no one here knows what could be a " very low friction " or what is VLF for you.
I try almost always post ( on agree or disagreements. ) for we can ( try at least ) have near the same subject perspective, try to have a reference overall frame. Yes, because my trouble with the English language many times I don't achieve that target.
I think that we are " here " to share audio experiences and to learn and IMHO we can enrich each one opinions along the " forum values " if we can/try to put a " tiny touch of objectivity " in our judgements/statements/posts against the usual: 100% subjectivity. I know that almost every one of us likes to improve his music/audio knowledge/skills and ignorance level and I think that what I'm " proposing " could help about.
Anyway, only an opinion.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
