Dear Ct, Thanks for reminding me. Note that I wrote nothing to the contrary in my post above.
Dear Dover, Whoa! The goal of alignment is still to be certain that the stylus will be tangent to the groove at 2 points across the arc over the surface of the LP. That's the best one can do with any fixed pivot tonearm using any geometry. I don't think spherical styli have been shown to have any special advantage with pivoted tonearms. What I think might happen with the DV tonearms is that by twisting the cartridge in the headshell to effect Baerwald or Lofgren geometry, one is generating assymetrical force vectors in the vertical plane that can act on the cantilever so as to create some kind of distortion. The DV tonearms are a special case only because of that vestigial vertically pivoting arm. In conventional pivoted arms, the same principle would apply, IMO, but perhaps the effect is less negative due to the much longer length of the vertical pivoting arm (which of course is equal to the length of the horizontally pivoting part of the same arm). I don't think it says anything much about stylus shape, but I could be wrong. If spherical styli have an advantage, I think it would apply across the board to all pivoting tonearms. All I can tell you is that my DV505 sounds MUCH better since I switched to using Stevenson alignment, and it has nothing to do with the type of music, etc. |
Complex and possibly true. As to your one direct question, yes, the DV505 sounds better from A to Z with Stevenson vs Baerwald, I subsequently purchased one of Dertonearm's UNIprotractors along with a template specific for the DV505 as well as one for conventional "Stevenson" alignment. The two are very near identical (closer than DV vs Baerwald or Lofgren), but I will at some point re-align the DV using the formal DV offset per the UNiprotractor template. In any case, Dertonearm's recommendation seems to agree with my empirical finding that among the 3 well known geometries, Stevenson is closest to exactly what results if you use the DV parameters and draw up a geometry to match them exactly. |
OK, guys.
If the terrorists take out Audiogon again, we all meet at Raul's living room exactly one week later. The secret code word is "MM". Raul, be sure to keep a supply of chiles rellenos and cerveza on hand. |
Thanks, Don and others, for your response. I have heard that Expert Stylus does great work. Since I, like most of you, own many cartridges, it would be no big deal to part with one for several months, if it needed repair. As I understand it, Expert Stylus are the only company to have the paratrace stylus available, and I even heard from one good source that Expert does the vdH repair work. Maybe that's why they are backed up. I have heard complaints about Soundsmith turnaround time, as well. It seems to be a matter of serendipity. But there is agreement that ES, Soundsmith, Axel, "vdH" (if its not farmed out to ES) all do great work. So far, I have zero personal experience sending out a cartridge for repair, but I suppose it will have to happen some day. I wonder about re-tipping my Koetsu Urushi with that paratrace/sapphire combo. Seems it would be a lovely amalgam. |
Don,
You wrote, "...back in June, I emailed Expert Stylus to have a cantilever/stylus replacement done." But when did you actually send them your cartridge? Just out of curiosity, what cartridge was it and what did they do to it that took 6 months (or less, if you sent your cartridge at some time after you sent them an email). I ask because one of my trusted sources says that Expert Stylus is the mecca for this sort of work. |
The same guy who told me that ES does at least some of the work for vdH also told me that they will not install the paratrace on cartridges sent to them by parallel companies; paratrace is only for private individuals who go directly to ES for the work. If so, that test may not be relevant. Sounds a little like conspiracy theory to me, however. |
I think once the CIA and MI5 have investigated this, we will learn that all cartridges in the world are built and repaired by a single gnome who lives on a mountaintop somewhere in the Alps (if you find out exactly where, he has to kill you), plus Axel. |
Does anyone here agree with the notion that a spherical tip is optimum for a stereo cartridge? I have no doubt it is a good way to go for mono.
I owned a London Decca and used it for a few years. I don't remember selling it, so maybe it is buried in a closet. It was a very fine sounding cartridge. My good buddy also owned one. Together we found that we could make the London sound "better" by adjusting two tiny screws inside the upper body. We each got our Londons tweaked up that way, and then we discovered independently that the adjusting screws had a profound effect on stereo separation. The "tweaking" we did turned them into essentially mono cartridges. There is a lesson in there somewhere. |
In the context of the old Decca cartridges, the conical version certainly was thought by most to be superior to its elliptical counterpart. I don't recall the model name for the conical/spherical one that HP so adored, but I bought the elliptical one (SC4E), in my usual contrarian manner, and found it to be a real dog. "Terrible" is not too strong a word for it. I think that if you like Quad 57 speakers and treasure midrange romance, a conical/spherical stylus can be the cat's pajamas. But if you fancy yourself to be a wideband guy, you would probably want a different stylus shape to get there.
Nikola, I have read many remarks on the internet to the effect that the Magic Diamond cartridge is or was naught but a gussied up version of a much much cheaper production cartridge, possibly one of the lesser Denons. So this would tend to reduce Mr. Andreoli's prestige in my eyes, except as a business man and professional guru. |
Any and all audio gear made of carbon fiber that I have ever heard sounds... dead, dead, dead, IMO. Resonance is in music. All instruments resonate. The human voice resonates. Killing all resonance is not a good thing, IME. We just need to make it work for us, rather than against us. Achieving that goal is more serendipity than anything else, since the phenomenon is so complex. |
Dear Nikola, It is my subjective opinion, yes, that carbon fiber does not make "music". This is based on listening to carbon fiber tonearms, platters and platter mats, loudspeakers, etc, over my audio lifetime. Possibly also including cartridge bodies. |
Raul may have a point, vis a vis carbon fiber tonearms. I have not heard any of the old timers. But I have heard the Well Tempered Reference tonearm, which I believe to be made of carbon fiber...... very very very dead. But also over damped with a huge trough of viscous goop. So who is to say which element of its design accounts for its lack of life? The other way in which Raul may be correct is in his idea that CF may not be so much "dead" sounding as it is adding a peculiar "muffled" coloration, so not really neutral. But I still think we/I am pleased by a serendipitous interaction of "good" resonances. In the end, there is almost no way to rid onesself of room resonance, at the very least. Or do we want CF furniture in an anechoic chamber? |
Considering that a 12-inch woofer bears some resemblance to a target complete with bullseye at the center, I think building drivers out of kevlar is quite relevant. If forced to listen to certain sopranos or American hip hop or (heaven forbid) bluegrass, I could easily see myself purchasing a firearm and using it on said kevlar driver. Fortunately I use ESL speakers; nothing about them resembles a target, and more fortunately, I eschew all of the foregoing types of fury-inducing music.
Supertweeters are nice, if you think your tweeter is not quite cutting the mustard at the highest frequencies. I don't know what else to say. With a good ribbon or ESL tweeter, one would not want it. |
Raul, Those small(er) MBLs must have been the ones I subsequently heard at RMAF in 2010. I agree; that was a very nice sounding system, one of my favorites at the show. And Dobbins proved to be a very nice guy. I listened to two cartridges, each mounted on a separate Reed tonearm, both of which were mounted on his "The Beat" turntable. I think it was an Ortofon A90 vs an Allnic Puritas or a SoundSmith Sussuro. This was one of the few rooms at the show where one could compare two cartridges using the same downstream components throughout. |
Wow! I got a lot of people excited with my seeming anti-supertweeter sentiment. My decision-making is purely based on what makes me happy in my listening room. While I concede that a super-tweeter can add "something" to the extreme high frequencies, I choose not to use one because of the associated trade-off of a crossover network, etc. But if I were to use one with my ESL speakers, only a ribbon or a plasma-based one would do.
Fleib, I consider you one of the smartest guys here, but you have not heard my Sound Lab 845PXs with completely re-derived input electronics. Using an after-market treble step-up transformer, we (friends who are in on this, and I) have been able to do away with all capacitors and inductors at the input; the bass and treble transformers are operating with no crossover. Plus, I have modified the "mixer box" that enables two transformers to drive the 845 full-range, to use 8kV teflon capacitors. These mods have raised the impedance of the speaker to make it a very comfortable load for my OTL amplifiers, and efficiency is also dramatically improved. So in sum I now have a system with two (teflon) coupling capacitors in the signal path between the output of the phono stage and my ears; one is 0.22uF and the other is 0.1uF. When I first auditioned the finished mods, about a month ago, I was laughing and crying at the same time. This is what I have been after for 30 years. So anyway, please don't generalize about ESL bass response or ESL dynamics. If you want to hear ESL bass and "jump", come to my house.
My next project is the Beveridge 2SW with direct-drive amps. |
Alex7333, If you have a Cardas test LP, bands 2a thru 2c are excellent for breaking in a cartridge. At the end of band 2c, the cartridge is prevented from going further across the LP; you have to lift it at that point and re-start it at the beginning of band 2a. Several trips though these tracks will get your suspension loose in short order. Highly recommended if you only have the patience to hang around while the LP does the work. By all means, DON'T listen to it; one beauty of it is that the rest of your system can be turned off during this process. |
This issue was mentioned earlier in the eternal thread; after 20-30 years on the shelf, the compliance of an actual sample of any MM, especially if NOS, may be quite a bit lower than the advertised value. Give it time and use and maybe it will loosen up. Or use a heavier tonearm. |
Dear Fleib,
My goat was not gotten. But it would be fair to say I did over-react. That is because I am so electro-ecstatic with the system as it currently sounds that I took the opportunity to brag a bit. I do concede that ESLs tend to roll off after about 15kHz, partly because they become extremely directional and partly because the impedance naturally drops to extremely low values such that no amplifier is very happy with them. But I never found that to be an issue. In fact, the aftermarket treble step-up transformer that I am using, in addition to its other virtues, has incredible extreme hf response, in terms of quality of sound. Cymbals and triangles are to die for. When I owned KLH9s was the only time I felt the urge to augment the treble response of an ESL, and that was because the 9s start to beam at even 2 to 3kHz.
There is nothing broken about the Beveridge amplifiers, but they appear to be original, which means all parts are about 30 years old. Time to refresh them. And in the process, I hope to upgrade some parts of the circuit, with the help of the very same Bill Thalmann who worked on my Denon DP80 and on my Technics tt's. (I can replace parts myself, but I am insecure about tweaking a solid state circuit; the Bev amps use an SS input stage and a tube output stage.)
This is all OT, and I apologize. By now this thread has gotten to be more like a Twitter or Facebook account than a forum. Which is cool, IMO. |
Hi Rich, Yes, RM designed the Beveridge amplifiers way back when he was a youth. |
Dear Don, What the heck is a "refresh"? Raul really has not defined it clearly. I hope he will comment further.
In general, does it surprise anyone that a new cantilever/stylus, which must also include a new suspension (or a "refresh") would be an improvement over the originals on a 20 to 30-year-old cartridge that was never top of the line in the first place? To me, this is almost a no-brainer, unless the person doing the work was incompetent, which is not the case for any of the companies under discussion.
Similarly, some one of us said that the cantilever/stylus on the Clearaudio Virtuoso is nothing special to begin with (made by AT, alu cantilever, etc, etc), so it also does not surprise me that a higher quality cantilever/stylus from Axel or from SS would be a marked upgrade to the Virtuoso. Both Nandric and you (Don) attest to that fact. |
I bought two Koetsu Urushi's from a dealer in Akihabara, the electronic district in Tokyo, via the auspices of my son who speaks perfect Japanese. We had to wait two weeks for them to be made on special order. Of the two, one had a "fairly" straight cantilever, but the other was grossly deviated to one side. I did not really notice the defect until I got back to the US. But I sent the defective one back to that dealer (via my very tolerant son, again) and he arranged for me to get a replacement, without batting an eyelash, like he was used to it. (This was a tribute to Dan's ability to be charming and polite in Japanese, I cannot help thinking.) I do love the cartridge, but i thought the "quality control" was indefensible, which is to say there was no control of quality. I actually think that the lower end cartridges made by mainstream companies, like Shure, Grado, Denon, AT, etc, are more likely to be consistent from sample to sample than are the fancy ones. Lyra and Transfig may be exceptions to that generalization. |
I own a P8E and a P8E Super Nova vdH. I must listen to them one of these days. Cannot tear myself away from the 320. Too lazy to mount a new cartridge, might be another way of putting it. I can easily see that they are both "low riders" as Raul suggests.
OK. Earlier last week, I placed a low bid on a Grace 714 (wood) tonearm, on eBay. I regretted having done so, because I really do not need it. Today, I won the darn thing for my low offer. I fully expected to be outbid at the last minute, but no such luck. One thing that interests me about the Grace 714 is the degree to which it resembles the new Durand Telos, in terms of construction, albeit Telos uses exotic hardwood instead of teak and is 12-inches vs 9.5. Any suggestions re the 714? It's mint and complete with box and all accessories, still in the bags. Maybe it's a good match for my Grace Ruby cartridge. |
Sorry. Should have written "P8ES" instead of P8E in all instances.
Dear Nikola,
You can be certain that I know why I won the auction in question. I think the fact that no one else bid on the Grace 714 may be an indication of waning fascination for vintage tonearms. I say this, because I have seen prices on other vintage tonearms going lower, as well.
But I would be interested to learn whether anyone else here has had experience with the 714, especially with a Grace cartridge. I know Raul uses a different model, all-metal, Grace tonearm and seems to like it. |
Nandric would ask you to parse the phrase "not particularly rigid". But I won't. One of my curiosities about this arm is based on ownership of a Reed tonearm and auditioning of a Talea tonearm. The two have a certain something in common, which you might call a coloration but which I call a kind of euphonic hyper-clarity. (I challenge you to parse THAT one!) So I am wondering whether this is something to do with wood. Based on the thickness and shape of the 714 arm wand, I expect a well preserved 714 to be as rigid as either of the two others I mentioned. But the engineering is otherwise quite different and not as SOTA, obviously. The coloration you perceived might more be due to inadequate stabilization of the unipivot bearing than to possible flexing. |
NIkola, "Parse" means in this case to deconstruct the phrase and consider how its elements contribute to meaning. You do this frequently and well. If "not particularly" is to have a meaning, we need to have a sense for what is "particularly rigid", for a tonearm, that is. No sexual connotation is intended. Also, I think you imputed to me a position I do not take; I would not say I am a devotee of wood tonearms; I am just now interested in them.
My very good friend and near neighbor is a highly skilled machinist who has very sophisticated equipment in his home. He has helped me in the past to make various items for my turntables. (What actually happens is that it is so much fun for him to muck around with his toys that he shoves me out of the way and does the job for me.) I am thinking about an anti-skate device for the Grace and also a very sturdy base such that the VTA adjustment can be made if not "on the fly", at least easier than the archaic method used in the Grace.
There is another very interesting "sleeper" wooden tonearm currently made in the Northwestern part of the US, in the state of Washington from whence the Durand tonearms also originate. This is the "Pete Riggle wood tonearm". It is beautifully handmade, novel, and not crazy expensive. |
Prior to this unnecessarily bitter dispute, I had always assumed that the difference between a P8E and a P8ES was merely the stylus assembly. Ergo, one can put a stylus meant for P8ES (stylus name X8S, I always thought) onto a "P8E" body, thereby converting it to p8ES. Not only am I now confused on that score, but also we have Raul saying that the van den Hul versions of "p8...." are totally unrelated to p8ES, if I am interpreting him correctly. I had always assumed that the vdH versions were merely further variations on the P8ES theme.
But let me assure you all that there are more important and consequential things to be angry about in this world. I consider you all my friends, so I don't like to see the hostility. |
Can someone please re-post here the URL for Axel. Youse guys got me interested in a rebuilt Super Nova. (This is Brooklyn/New Jersey English, Nikola.)
Dear Nikola, It is true that I am an ardent critic of sloppy audiophile thinking, but I hope it is evident that I also take care at all times not to be offensive while making my points. If you perceive that I failed to achieve that goal in response to one of your posts, I do apologize. |
This reminds me of an Abbott and Costello comedy routine. (Sorry, Nandric, Abbott and Costello were a mid-20th century frenetic American comedy team that made people laugh by arguing with each other, before Tito.) So let me get this straight for myself, once and for all. Raul, are you saying that there are two entirely different AKG cartridges, both named "P8ES", one that preceded the other?
If so, which one is it that you are liking lately? Or is it a P8E that you fancy? |
Timeltel, The real question is "Who's on first?"
I examined my AKG stash. Indeed, it is clear that there are two kinds of "P8ES", and I own one of each. (I never noticed the difference until last night and thanks to R and N.) As I recall, the stylus on my older version P8ES looked pretty suspect when I received it from the eBay seller, in the sense that the suspension is pretty limp and the cantilever deviates to one side. Maybe that one should go to Axel. I also have a P8ES "Nova vdH II", built on what I now see as the late version P8ES body. This does not address the issue of P8E vs P8ES cross-compatibility, in its entirety. What is likely true is that within a body type, yes, the styli are cross-compatible between those two. But obviously, the stylus of an "old" P8ES would not fit the body of a "new" P8E, and vice-versa. Raul was right, this confusing AKG nomenclature makes Acutex look logical by comparison.
One more thing. Dear Nandric, I would not use BluzBros as a gold standard. At least once, I found they were clearly misrepresenting their items for sale as OEM when obviously the stylus was NOT OEM. (This was an Acutex.) Nor is their photo gallery therefore reliable as a guide. What angered me was the fact that they gave me verbal assurance by telephone that they sell only OEM styli (or at least that what they label OEM is truly OEM). BS.
Anyone who knows me will tell you that I would abjure serious discussion in favor of humor related to the serious subject, e.g., the current Republican presidential candidates. But cartridges are inherently fun subjects. |
Dear Nandric, You wrote, "What is exactly the problem by your specimens? Ie any idea why the stylusholder do not fit?" I never meant to imply that I have any problem. I was just saying that by visual inspection I can see that the stylus assembly of my "old" P8ES would not fit on my "new" P8ES, and vice-versa. This is in agreement with Raul's position on the matter, and probably yours, too.
If and when I re-tip the "old"-style P8ES, I most certainly will first of all consider Axel's services. For now, I can play with the other two AKGs (the plain P8ES, new body style, and the P8ES vdH II, also new body style). Those both seem to be in excellent shape if not in fact NOS.
Dear Timeltel, Even though the seller of the Beveridge speakers claimed that he was listening to them and had no issues up to a few weeks before I bought them, I took note of the fact that their direct-drive amplifiers appear to be completely original, which means that the electrolytic capacitors, of which there are many, are ca 30 years old. I intend to replace them before firing up the amplifiers and speakers. |
Dear Nandric,
I am so glad to learn that Frege tried to help Wittgenstein but so sorry to note that he was obviously unsuccessful. My dear sister studied Wittgenstein for a time, in order to gain credits toward a PhD in Sociology. However, Prof Wittgenstein's writings caused her an excess of vexation, and she quit the idea entierly.
Also, your explication of the differences between and among various AKG series cartridges and styli was very well done. One helpful way to describe things that "stick out" in order to engage things that are recessed in a complementary object is to call them "male" and "female", respectively. Otherwise, bravo! What questions do you still have, and what possessed you to do surgery on two items that were clearly not meant by the AKG gods to be mated? This calls to mind the mad scientists of any of several sci-fi movie thrillers, from "Frankenstein" onward. |
Dear John, I had experience with Acutex styli, where they claimed to have an OEM version of a stylus assembly that I found to be obviously NOT OEM. This is one example. Fortunately for me, I figured it out before purchase. In fairness, this could have been an "honest mistake" on their part. Even if it was an honest mistake, the Latin "caveat emptor" still applies.
Dear Nandric, I never got a clear idea of your opinion of how the AKG cartridges sound. Are you "done with AKG" because of their below par sonic qualities or because of this cartridge body/stylus matching issue? |
I think we have broached this topic in the past, but can we talk about headshells? I am looking for some relatively light weight ones, so I can permanently mount some of my favorite high compliance cartridges. On eBay it's easy to find expensive and well built high mass headshells, but it's not so easy to determine the quality of the light weight ones, which are often flimsy looking. Take-offs from AT, Pioneer, Sony, and Technics tonearms are abundant and cheap on eBay, but are they any good? For less than $150, what light weight headshells are especially good. And "how light" does the headshell have to be to work well with these cartridges, notwithstanding the inherent mass of the rest of the tonearm? And stuff like that. |
Dear Nandric, the Orsonic 101 weighs 18 gm. I own one, but I deem it to be too heavy for use with high compliance cartridges. There is another version, called "11B", now on eBay and said to weigh only 12 gm, which IMO is the upper limit for high compliance cartridges (taken together with the other factors and depending upon what tonearm, that is). |
The light weight Orsonic for sale on eBay does look a bit flimsy, like it would not be too rigid. It appears that in order to reduce mass they shaved a bit of metal off the important structural areas. Thanks for that feedback and for the other feedback. I know that Raul likes those AT magnesium headshells; are those the ones where the model name begins "MG"? I think so, or "Duh!", as my son would say. Nandric, I have a Triplanar. As you know, it is "medium" mass, at about 11 gm total. Probably it would not be too bad with high compliance cartridges, as you have apparently discovered. Will give it a try. Thanks for all the other suggestions, but keep them coming. It would be fun to discuss relative sonic merits. Headshells and platter mats have a huge effect on sound quality and are often disregarded as factors. (I just replaced the SAEC SS300 metal mat on my SP10 Mk3 with a Boston Audio Mat2. The sound is very different, smoother is one way to describe the difference. But I am not sure I prefer the BA mat2 on all counts vs the SS300. Maybe.) |
Dear David, Thank you for that list. More of your opinions of relative attributes would also be appreciated. Part of your text answers one of my questions; with those AT MG series headshells, as you note, there seems to be no capacity for fine adjustment of overhang, because one is forced to use one of several discrete pairs of threaded inserts to mount the cartridge. I had been wondering whether they compensated for this obvious (and for me, deal-killer) shortcomings by allowing for some fore and aft movement at the rear of the headshell, where it grips the cylindrical mount for the tonearm. Apparently not. What were they thinking? Otherwise, those are reasonably priced and beautifully made headshells. Raul put me on to the Belldream (magnesium) headshell available on eBay. I've got one and will probably try it with either the Grace Ruby or the AKG P8ES Super Nova II.
I was present at Herb's house (aka the Triplanar factory) on one of the days that Tri was visiting to learn from Herb how to make the tonearm. I think Tri spent a week or two by Herb's side. At that point in time, Herb's health was failing rapidly, but his incredibly strong personality was still in play. Herb made most of the individual parts of the tonearm on his workbench, originally, but by this time he was "farming out" some of the difficult parts, or maybe just the arm tubes, to other machine shops. Tri is a very nice guy and worthy of bearing the Triplanar mantle. (Besides, given his name, who else could be more qualified?) I do not think that Tri's surname is "Planar", however. Pity. |
Spent the better part of this evening mounting the Grace Ruby in the Belldream headshell (probably a bit too heavy for optimal) and then aligning it using the complex UNIprotractor. Finally at about midnight I ended up with some tunes, listening to June Christy on Capitol, an album that I had just been listening to on my Reed/Ortofon MC7500, but hardly an audiophile dream LP in terms of sonics. At 12:30 AM, my wife informed me that she found it impossible to sleep with me playing records, loud, on a level just below our bedroom. Sheesh! I had to stop in order to demonstrate what a loving husband I am. With 100K load, no added C, in Dynavector DV505 on lowly Lenco, I was quite impressed. (I think someone remarked that the Grace cartridges need some added C.) This cartridge is delicious. That's the word that popped into my head. Just lovely from midbass to low treble. And no lack of highs. It's much too short an audition to draw any conclusions, but I had the feeling I could listen to it for hours on end.
So, Raul, why do you think you never had a problem setting overhang despite the limitations of the MG series of headshells? It would seem to me that just by chance some cartridges would not align properly. Anyway, I have an MG10 and will try that too, to see if I am as fortunate as you. |
I think the Fukushima earthquake as registered several hundred miles away in Tokyo was in the 7's. My son said all the office buildings on the street where he works (in Tokyo) were swaying in unison, like a group of hula dancers. He was terrified, but they were all engineered to do that so as to dissipate energy. Glad to know you are OK. |
Hi Raul, So, as I was guessing, with the MG10 you just got the overhang as close as possible to perfect without worrying about actual "perfect" based on a protractor. I am sure it works fine to do that. The UNIprotractor tends to make one very anal about exact correct alignment, and it's easy to see if you are off even by a tiny distance. Nevertheless, the design of the AT headshells is surprisingly limiting. Not only is freedom to set overhang limited, but also one must have screws of the exact correct length so as to tighten the cartridge in place before they bottom out in the threaded hole in the headshell.
Based on my early impressions of the Grace Ruby, I am tending to think that the Belldream HS52 (I think that's the model name) is a superb headshell, probably a "Best Buy" among new ones. I am thinking that I need to re-mount the Acutex 320 in a Belldream as well. |
Dear Nandric, Excellent idea. What he does for me or with me is out of friendship and when it is fun or interesting for him. No money changes hands. So I will have to turn the idea into some sort of adventure. I have another, bigger project to talk him into, before I think about headshells. |
I just set the stock Triplanar AS weight to minimum and forget about it. Doug's obsession with "resonating" parts does not hold water for me. If the AS device and the trough are tightly bolted to the main structure, they cannot add "resonance"; they can only alter the resonant frequency of the entire tonearm, probably in a downward direction wrt frequency. Who is to say that this is a bad thing? Plus I really hear distortions in my system with no AS applied. I guess Doug hears something that I don't hear with regard to a negative effect of the AS and damping trough.
Mike, the stated weight of the Belldream is 12gm, I believe. Compared to other headshells, I would say this is "medium" weight. But I did not weigh mine, and to tell the truth, it felt pretty hefty in my hand and was obviously heavier than the Denon headshell into which the Acutex 320 is mounted. If the Grace Ruby continues to sound as good as it did for 30 minutes last night, I will leave the Ruby in the Belldream for a spell. As to the possible disadvantage of the azimuth adjustment feature, I would just tighten down that screw that clamps the headshell in one position and then listen to music. Fugeddaboudit. |
Mike, You wrote, "The only thing that lightens the arm is removing the set screw for damping." Can you elaborate? What set screw? And why did you want to lighten the arm? What really puzzles me is that some perfectly reasonable people, such as yourself and Doug, claim that they can live totally without any AS and have no issues with groove distortions. I hear it immediately if I totally remove AS, both on my Dynavector and on my Triplanar. So, I start from the position that some (a very tiny amount, actually) AS is necessary. Sorry, this is not about MM and MI cartridges per se. |
Mike, "The screw a 8 32 i think goes from the arm to the trough." So you would remove that screw entirely if you are going to remove the damping trough. But that would not lighten the arm wand, i.e., it would not reduce tonearm effective mass. (I should run downstairs to check out my own TP to be sure of this, but I am about to hit the sack. I think the trough is attached to the vertical column that supports the bearing assembly. You can say that the trough adds some sort of unpleasant resonance, if you want, but I don't think it adds mass.) Also, as regards effective mass vis the counter-wts, you want the counter-wt as close as possible to the pivot to minimize effective mass. The effective mass will be directly proportional to the SQUARE of the distance between the pivot and the center of mass of the rear counter-wt. So make that distance as small as possible, even if the required mass to counter-balance the tonearm goes up. See here:
http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=3549.0
I remember Herb Papier talking to me about this, too. That's why he supplied that heavy conical shaped CW, conical so it can go right up against the pivot.
Now for something relevant: Tonight I listened to my newly acquired Grace Ruby for two solid hours (that's about all I can manage on a week night). My initial impressions were more than confirmed that this is a stellar cartridge. Depth, "air", vocals, resolution, huge soundstage, etc, etc. It's all there. If the AKG P100LE and the Technics are dramatically superior, I will have to hear them to believe it. In the Belldream headshell, I think I prefer Ruby to the Acutex 320 in a very lightweight Denon headshell, all other elements being identical. (So I need to try the Acutex in a Belldream and/or in a Saturn V Acutex headshell.) The Stanton 980LZS has been out of service; I need to get it back up and running to compare it to the Grace in the same rig. (The Stanton was running on the Kenwood L07D, with its ancient internal wiring and probably suboptimal stock interconnect.) Then too, there is the question of capacitance and load resistance that might cause one MM/MI cartridge to outperform another. |
Dear Ct0517, Perhaps your advice would hold true if said R2R recorder had a well massaged and upgraded output circuit, but I think the stock circuits of yore add enough new distortions so as to mitigate if not abrogate any other advantages of R2R vs modern bigh end phono, and I admit there are some. A fully tweaked top end R2R must indeed be wonderful, but after one has purchased those "one or two master dubs", one has spent about as much as the cost of a good vintage tonearm. And where do you go for variety in your music? That's the problem, lack of the software and/or very high cost of the software. I have about 2000 records. What would be the cost of 2000 "master dubs"? They don't even exist anyway. Skating force is not THAT bad of a problem. I find that a small touch of AS takes care of all issues there. And if one cannot bear dealing with skating force, then one can use a linear tracking tonearm.
Sorry, Raul. I did not see your rhetorical question before I posted last night. However, it seems to me that you are the one who has often taken the position that all measurable distortions should be minimized, regardless of what other factors are beyond our control. For example, you espouse solid state components vs tubes, because of their lower measured distortion; you maintain that RIAA equalization must be as precise as possible, regardless of the possible equalization errors introduced in the recording process, not to mention the fact that early LPs often were subjected to now extinct standards of equalization that most of our phono stages cannot introduce. Etc. So, to take the position that alignment should be precise as possible from the get-to is equally supportable using your own logic. Having said all that, I admit I have a long history of not caring much about that last mm of accuracy. The UNIprotractor does make it easy to get down to less than one mm, so why not?
Dear Nandric, You over-estimate me. The major reason I would not remove parts from the Triplanar is that I fear I would lose them. Also, as noted, I DO perceive a need for a small amount of AS force, and I DON'T hear any problem with the TP that could possibly be related to a resonating damping trough. To Doug and others in his camp, this makes me a Philistine. I can take it. |
Raul, All I wrote was that striving for perfect alignment or as near as possible to that goal is similar in nature to your own goals for perfect RIAA equalization and lowest possible measurable THD and IMD, indeed, your whole crusade against "distortions" of any kind. Now, with respect to your post above, it's an interesting proposition. I doubt any one of us could hear the difference. Moreover, as long as the alignment chosen, whatever it is, accurate to some standard or random, results in two null points somewhere on the arc traversed by the stylus across the playable LP surface, I doubt it makes any difference on average to the listening experience. So we probably are in agreement on that. However, nor do I think that perfect RIAA makes much difference as long as RIAA is in the right ballpark, because the reverse equalization imposed during creation of an LP is/was also probably never perfect. After all, they used those dreaded vacuum tubes in those days.
I will say this: cartridges carefully aligned according to some standard that is compatible with the tonearm design are consistently sounding very good to me these days, e.g., anything I install in the DV505 tonearm using Stevenson or Dertonearm's recommended near-Stevenson template. Whereas previously, for example when I tried to impose Baerwald alignment on my DV505 tonearm, all cartridges sounded lousy.
Ecir, I think the different standard geometries (Stevenson, Baerwald, etc) would not only move the cartridge fore and aft in the headshell but also require twisting the cartridge at progressive angles toward or away from the spindle. it's this change of cartridge angle that can really affect the sound, I think. |
Dear Raul, I assumed that your point in asking me and others to move the cartridge fore or aft in the headshell was to demonstrate to me/us that "perfect alignment", as opposed to "approximate alignment" (which is where you end up if you move the cartridge a mm or two in the headshell) makes no difference. However, your last post makes me wonder whether my assumption is not correct. If you care to share your reasoning, that would be fun and informative.
Dear Flieb, I, of course, agree with you. But there definitely are a large number of vinylphiles who have simply done away with application of AS. I often wonder whether they share the same rationale or different ones. ("I can't hear it" vs "I can hear it, but the negative effects of the anti-skate mechanism are worse.") For me, I virtually have no choice; the results of disconnecting the AS mechanism from my TP were unpleasant (distortion in the R channel, as I recall). With the Dynavector DV505 it may be that hear fewer issues, but still I prefer to have a small amount of AS on board. By the way, I have done some internet reading on the cause of the skating force. As I understand it now, it is primarily due to friction between the stylus and grooves (which is proportional to stylus velocity as well as to the tortuosity of the groove); that force of friction develops a centripetal vector (= skating) force due to the offset angle of the headshell or anything else in the geometry that deviates from tangency of the stylus to the groove. This is really only a different way of saying what you said, I think. |
Heh-heh. Here we go again. I heard not only channel imbalance but also gross distortion of treble frequencies. (This was with one particular cartridge on one particular LP on my Triplanar, so could be different for different styli that don't produce as much friction force and for different LPs that are more "groovy".)
To think this discussion started because I mentioned using the UNIprotractor in one of my posts about headshells. Go figure. |
Prof, I would rather talk cars with you than skating force. I was once a Porsche guy, for 30 years, nothing newer than '65. Owned many Speedsters, owned 3 different Carrera GT Speedsters in fact. My zenith was a 550 Spyder, two serial numbers away from James Dean's car. (Dean's was #53 of about 90; mine was #55.) I restored it to perfection, probably the best most original one in the US. The great stupidity of my life is that I sold them all.
As I said above, the prime determinant of skating force is stylus friction in the groove. Without Ff, as we used to abbreviate friction in college, you cannot generate the skating force Fs. Then the lack of tangency of the stylus to the groove causes the skating force, offset angle notwithstanding. In a linear tracker properly set up, the stylus tip is always tangent to the groove; hence no skate force. So, if a pivoted tonearm has no headshell offset, then at a point where the tonearm/cartridge is perfectly perpendicular to the radius of the LP from the spindle out, there would also be no skating force. Headshell offset angle makes it a certainty that there is never a straight line from stylus tip through the pivot. Hence, there is always at least some skating force. This is my current way of thinking about it.
My model system is a child's toy wagon. Consider if you fix the handle of the wagon at an angle and then try to pull the wagon in a straight line behind you. The wagon will always be trying to turn slightly at an angle to your desired path whilst you try to pull it straight ahead on some slippery but still friction-generating surface and you will have to exert an extra force to keep it moving in the direction you wish to travel. That extra force, to me, is an analogue of the skate force. Anyway, the 3 of us agree that skating force is a reality with pivoted tonearms.
REG has always been a MM aficionado. I've got an NOS 881S MkII that I found right here in Rockville, MD. My 980LZS has a D98S stylus, which I think is the correct OEM one, not D81S. Am I wrong? |
Dear Prof,
Force in all Newtonian mechanics IS a vector quantity, by definition. JCarr's use of the term is not casual; it is correct. Newton's Laws of Motion require that a force has a direction; that's the definition of a vector quantity. The force of friction as a stylus traverses a groove has a vector 180 degrees opposite to the force exerted on the groove by the rotation of the platter. And I will say yet again, without friction there is no skating force, however else you want to define it. I also have no idea why you quoted Newton's definition of a centripetal force here. Yes, the skating force is centripetal, but we are discussing its genesis. Also, there is no such thing as "centrifugal force"; what holds a planet in orbit is purely the force of gravity between it and the sun; the planet "wants" to shoot off in a straight line tangent to its orbit, but gravity prevents that. Gravity has a vector along the radius of the planetary orbit.
As JCarr stated, the centripetal direction of the skating force vector is the result of the VECTOR summing of all the other forces acting on the stylus. I am not sure that any of us is disagreeing with any others of us as regards how offset does that; we are just using different words to say the same thing. The only issue for me is the role or lack of same of the lack of tangency to the groove per se as a cause of skating force. That is, would a straight but pivoted tonearm with zero headshell offset still generate skating force? I think yes, for any point where the stylus is not tangent to the groove walls. But could be wrong. I guess JCarr thinks I'm wrong. |
Fleib, Someday I will sit down and really think this through with pencil and paper in order to develop a higher level of conviction, but I take your point for now. You might like to know that I was once dressed down by someone either here on Audiogon Analogue or on VA, who told me in no uncertain terms that skating force was due to lack of tangency to the groove. I never did the work to determine for myself whether I agree, as I hope I indicated. I just wanted to put it out there. Just to be more sure that I am communicating the idea properly, when I say "tangent to the groove", I mean that a line drawn from the pivot to the stylus tip is tangent to the groove. Any deviation from that would produce undesired force vectors at the stylus tip, in this hypothesis. (Think about it; it will be on the test.) Also, in one site known for erudition I have read that a pivoted tonearm with zero headshell offset does not generate a skating force; in another equally erudite place I have read that it does (by virtue of the tangency hypothesis stated above). (By the way, Nottingham tonearm has zero offset headshell, and some do like it.) So, the internet is full of misinformation of one kind or another on this subject, and perhaps I should not argue further until I feel really convinced that I know what I am talking about. The simple point that friction is at the heart of the matter will suffice for now, and of course headshell offset is the major factor if not the only factor in the genesis of the skating force from the force of friction. The big thing is that no pivoted tonearm, no matter how costly and beautifully made is exempt from skating force.
I was thinking about the RS Labs RS-A1 tonearm, which is lacking both a headshell offset angle AND the factor of stylus overhang (underhang by 21mm is recommended). Too bad the inventor's English is so poor that I cannot understand his rationale, but he claims that his design cancels all these undesired forces. I've got one, and it sounds great. |
