Dear Travbrow: The Supex ( after set up " right ". ) has an immediate WOW factor free of distortions against other WOWs full of distortions.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hi Raul,
Hope you had a wonderful birthday. I had to laugh to your answer to (3). You have a good since of humor. In reply to your comment about this paticular Clearaudio being made by AT answers a lot of questions I've had about Clearaudio in general. If it was not for this cartridge, I would say I didn't like anything Clearaudio had to offer. I have heard a lot of them and they all sound thin to me. I have a reply sent to me from Wyndham Hodgson of Expert Stylus in the UK. I had inquired about a retip and this was his reply. I have tried to attack it here but no luck, so I wil retype for you to read. I quote what he has written____"I should point out that we have never been impressed with Clearaudio cartridges, they are very expensive and one can purchase very much cheaper cartridges sounding equally as good if not better".___end of quote. I decided not to retip it. |
T_Bone and Halcro with all of your experience your comments on your top choice of tone arms is highly valued. No doubt there are others here , so please join.
|
Dear Travbrow: Thanks to bring the Supex cartridge here.
The one I tested is the SM-100MK2 that even that comes with two different stylus: 38E ( elliptical. ) and the 5 ( conical. ) my tests were with the 38E. The cartridge was designed for 4ch. too so it takes advantage with the 100kohms on load impedance.
No WOW factor here at first glance, it take me some time to made a near perfect cartridge set up on VTA/SRA and capacitance loading ( 350pf added. ). VTF set up at 1.40grs and Supex recommend Grace tonearms for it so I mounted in my Grace G-945 in an AT-D 8.5grs aluminum headshell.
After set-up and settle down playback hours the word that came to my mind about its quality performance level is: just great performer.
The music flows freely with out any added tiny rough as the nagatron. The cartridge lets the music goes into your ears with no single obstacle, it never tell you: I'm here.
Beautiful natural tonal balance with very good performance top to bottom. If you don't have nothing on hand to compare it you can swear there is nothing that can beat it. Well, I compare it against the AT 180 ML-OCC and I was really surprised that can compete at this very high top quality. The main differences are as almost always at both frequency extremes especially in the bass where the Supex has a little more rounded response than the AT that has the rigthness in this frequency range at the 100CMK4 quality level, so we are talking here of the best of the best in the comparison for the very very humble Supex. IMHO a winner with very low distortions either from tracking abilities and cartridge body/stylus assembly resonances.
Only for the records: the Supex is very good tracker an almost pass all my tests on the subject, as an example the cartridge is abble to pass all 16 cannon shots on the Telarc but the first and the last one.
Yes, it can compete and gives a good challenge to any cartridge I know.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Griffthds: 1) that cartridge ranking was a little old and maybe not useful today where not only I heard a lot more different cartridges but where I made some system ( important. ) changes/improvements to my audio system. All in all those Ortofon are very good and in those times I prefer by a " hair " the E over the FL but I can't say today.
2) you already have answers. 3) I can do it after you send your cartridges as a present to me!! 3') I own that Clearaudio that I really don't test it yet. I had same information on its performance as you experienced. The cartridge ( I understand ) is made it by AT for Clearaudio. I will give a listening and report about. 4) No, Azden designed and manufactured standard mount models like these ones: http://www.vinylengine.com/cartridge_database.php?m=Azden&t=mm&mod=&sort=1&Search=Search&sty=&ovlo=&ovhi=&can=&dclo=&dchi=&stid=&masslo=&masshi=¬es=&prlo=&prhi=
even you can buy one of these here: http://www.adelcom.net/AzdenCart1.htm , only have caution with this cartridge source because almost all experiences that persons in this forum had were dissapointing ones for say the least.
5) I can see that you are really " armed " to run the great analog LP road!!!
Thank to you to remember my birthday, appreciated.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
A silly thought (perhaps) - MM went through its fall into shadow around the same time that the big (Japanese) LT manufacturers pulled out of the market.
Was Linear Tracking a logical development associated with high compliance MM? The two do coincide, and the disappearance of mainstream LT also appears to coincide with the fall from grace of MM cartridges.
Is T_Bones comment about LT being an ideal solution to High compliance a marker to why LT rose to prominence.... and also perhaps to why it fell from favour when MC's became dominant (along with low compliance)?
Are the inherent compromises with pivoted arms least evident with low compliance, and the inherent compromises of LT's least evident with high compliance?
In particular I am thinking of short arm LT's with tracking happening directly over the record... Long arm LT's may be quite different beasts - my LT experience so far is with the Revox.
bye for now
David |
Halco,
I have been thinking about your comment comparing the issues of the Phantom arm with the 2.2 arm. I wish the Pantom was intended to be a upgraded 2.2 but it wasn't. Bob designed a completely different arm when he built the Phantom. Parts are not interchangable. I tried to order from Bob, the Phantom wands for my 2.2 and was told by Bob that I might be able to swap a few screws B/T the two arms but that is about all. Each arm seems to have issues, but they are not the same issues. The needs of a MM cartridges did not seem to be on Bob's mind when he designed his latest creation |
Hi In_shore,
Sorry I confused your threat with T_bones. Thank you for your imput about the Phantom. I have considered selling my 2.2 and buying the new Phantom. I would of had to give up all the multiple arm wands I use, and buy additional phantom wands. We are talking big $$$ hear. Because of your comment about the 4000D setup issues on the Phantom, I will just keep what I have. Thank you again. |
Hi Halcro,
My primary table is the VPI Aries with the Graham 2.2 arm. I have 4 wands, one of which is his ceramic wand. The other 3 are his standard wands, alum I think. Believe me, I have no problem with MM cartridgs on the rig. Before I started reading this thread, I was using primarily MC cartridges. The Benz Micro Ruby III, Blue Oasis by Win Sau, Denon 103R with Expert Stylus ruby cantilever and a Paratrace stylus, and my MM's were the Clearaudio Vituroso Wood and a Otofron M20FL. Due to this thread, I purchased a Audio Technics AT15sa and installed a AT20ss stylus. This has become my favorite cartridge, as good as the RubyIII. I have not used it long enough to state it's better, so leave it just as good as. Years ago, some outfit in Japan were making these thin lead shims that were to be used (sandwidged), between the cartridge and the headshell, arm wand in the case of the Graham. They were for resonace control on the plastic bodied cartridges that were coming out at that time. I quickly discovered they also add weight the the front of the tone arm. At that time I was using a SOTA Saphire table with a Alphason HR arm. The lead wedge vastly improved the compliance issues I was having with various cartridges (Denons), at that time. During that era, the term compliance was not banterned around. You were just told you needed to use a lighter/heavier arm when certain cartridge were installed.I have continued using those same lead shims as needed to this day. When I install any cartridge, I expect it to sound great. If it doesn't, I try the shim. I have been susprised more thatn once doing this. |
Hi T bone, I am enjoying the EPA 100MKII tonearm very much. Even with the stock cable and wiring I like it better than my rewired EPA 500. Both these tonearms are very user friendly and great designs.
Since the tonearm is new to me I am not sure how to tweak the damping adjustment for best sound, I have been just mostly setting it at recommended amount dependant on cartridge compliance. Any tips for adjusting damping on the EPA 100 tonearm?
About bearing friction, low bearing friction allows the cartridge do its job easier, track the record grooves accurately without needing to "fight" the arm drag? Or am I wrong on this assumption? |
T_bone, The very best arm I have found for very high-compliance cartridges is the Continuum Copperhead. This is out of the 10 or so vintage and modern arms I have mounted in my system. The Copperhead recommendation is academic though as it was re-wired with DaVinci Grandezza wiring due to RFI problems with the original unshielded Copperhead phono wiring. The second best arm I have found for high-compliance MM cartridges, strangely enough, is the high-mass Fidelity Research FR-66S. Go figure?
In_shore, I'm currently listening to the Empire 4000DIII in the Copperhead and it is quite luminescent although I agree with you that the MA-505S with a Yammy headshell punches above its weight.
Griffithds, do you have another arm for the MMs or are you only using the Graham 2.2 as I found the Phantom 2 to be a rather poor match with high-compliance MM cartridges? |
Griffithds, you have to thank In_shore for the warning about the Phantom and the Empire. I have never tried the pair. |
In_shore, The EPA-100Mk2 I had rebuilt/modded was in pretty terrible cosmetic condition, and the VTA ring had come unstuck, and it had cigarette smoke residue gumming up the bearings slightly. I had the arm completely overhauled/cleaned, some of the silk-screening redone, the ruby bearings replaced with higher quality (greater degree of roundness compared to the original rubies) silicon nitride bearings, and got it rewired from headshell collar to phono stage inputs with shielded solid-core silver air-cotton dielectric and silver Eichmanns. The original P3 arm can be brought up to EA-3 standards by using some kind of damping material on the armband. The 'dynamic resonance absorber' can be replicated with a thin strip of sponge wrapped semi-tightly by a piece of lead tape, with the bulk placed just in front of the place where the armwand plugs into the main pivot. On the EA-3-style arms, i have had a few (still do). One EA-3 (the newer one with built-in DRAs) and one original are as original. One original arm has been factory-rewired recently.
I will be trying the Empire/Yamamoto HS-3 combo later this weekend. It was discussed and I had never used one so I found one and snagged it. Looking forward to it. The boxwood is slightly heavier than the cherry it seems. |
Dear T_bone, I didn't say that MOI was the over riding issue for longer arm inferiority. I said it was a disadvantage. The cart not only moves constantly toward the center of the record, it also moves in response to the movements of the stylus/cantilever. That assembly has a certain springiness, but what is the "fixed" object the assembly pushes against on the back end? The cart body is attached firmly to the arm which must respond to vertical movements with warps and back and forth movements with off-center records. All these movements are actually angular because the cart is constantly moving inward. Regards, |
Hi T-Bone' My Graham is the 2.2 and there was no problem mounting/setting up the 4000D in its jig. Most of the cartridges that I have sit towards the back of the arm slots. The 4000D is the 1st cartridge that I've had that had to be set more into the center of the slots to align properly. Still had room for more foward/backward positioning if it was needed. Concidering how much I like the 4000DIII, I quess their won't be a Graham Phantom arm in my future. Thanks for the heads up! |
THANK YOU Banquo363!
I don't think I will sleep tonight. I bought both. The Adzen and the AT155LC stylus. It's starting to feel alittle like Christmas here! |
Griffithds: Stereoneedles has the at155lc stylus for significantly less than the price you state, so buy there instead if you go that direction. I bought mine from them. Also, the p-mount adapter I bought on ebay was a very mediocre solution to the problem I had with my Azden. I eventually bought a lower model azden just so I could have an original adapter. BTW: if you're looking to buy the ym p50vl, there's a NOS on audiogon right now. Good opportunity. |
Raul, Have a Good Birthday.
Griffithds,
you mentioned above trying the Empire 4000D with your Graham arm. I like the Empire 4000D also though quickly found the cartridge too long for proper set up with the Graham Phantom alignment jig. Currently I have the Empire mounted in a Yamamoto HS3 box wood head shell installed in a Micro Seiki 505s arm, what a surprise! Talk about bang for the buck...
T-Bone,
your Exclusive EA-3 including the Technics 100mk2 are unquestionably beautifully built tone arms which I'm happy you mention them being fabulous performers. If you don't mind what type of mod was done to your EPA 100mk2 also have you kept the original wiring in both arms? |
Thank you Timeltel. What a very informative reply you have presented. You have got me leaning towards the ATN155LC. Main reason being that they are quickly disapearing! The AT440MLa are readily available, so I could always get one of them later if the need arose. Nice to hear that any of the three would be great to live with. As far as setup, I would be running it thru a BAT VK10se, so loading would not be a problem. Thanks again! |
Regards, Griffithds: While others are sorting out tonearms and Raul is celebrating (congradulations, Raul), may I field two of your questions?
Lewm (hi!, Lew) beat me to the easy one: The "P" in the Azden's designation denotes just that, a P-mount design.
The AT7V and the TK7ea share some characteristics but the carts differ in inductance and output impedance. Not much, just enough to give the 7V a little more apparency in the high end. The Signets' strength is in the mids/upper lows while still maintaining excellent attention to detail in the hf's. The ATN155lc on the TK7ea will bring the TK7ea's performance to approximate the very good TK7LCa. The AT7V, the AT120, the AT440MLa and a large handfull of other AT carts all share the same basic configuration but are of differing quality in their construction and elec. design. The Signets were promoted as having more attention to these details within each grouping.
The AT440MLa stylus on the Signet is slightly less resolving than the ATN155LC but if you should choose this alternative, the 440MLa is sometimes to be found in the $100 range by searching at Amazon.com. The AT440MLa is a higher output impedance cart and will need to be carefully loaded (there's been lots of advice about this on the AudioKarma forum) or it WILL sound exceedingly edgy. Both the AT7V and TK7ea @ 100-200pF, 47 through 100k Ohms res. at your discression.
The 440MLa: Output impedance, 3.2k Ohm, (1kHz). Coil inductance 490mH. Output, 4.0mV. Dynamic compliance, 10-6cm/dyne, 1.0-1.8gm VTF The AT7V: Output impedance, 3.0k Ohm, coil inductance 500mH. Output, 5.0mV. Compliance, 7-6x10cm/dyne, 1.75-2.25gm VTF. The Signet TK7ea/LCa: 900 Ohm, 550mH. Output, 5.0mV. Compl./ATN155LC, 16-6x10cm/dyne. Signet OEM: unknown but mfr. reco. at 0.8-1.6gm VTF, leaving off before the AT7V begins.
All are PCOCC coil windings, depending on listening objectives there is no reason one should not be pleased with any of the three. Requires meticulous attention to set up but I do enjoy the easy to listen to TK7LCa/ATN155LC on an EPA-250 (250mm eff. length, 12 gm. eff. mass) tonearm alot. This one, you can turn up the volume, it won't disappoint.
Peace, |
Dear Fleib, I understand the way a stylus moves in a stereo-cut groove and the way a cart body moves across the record. I understand the definition of MOI, and I understand the weakness of the wiki definition as it applies to the stylus end of a tonearm traveling across a record. It takes 20-odd minutes to cross 85mm (that's a whopping 4mm a minute) without, one hopes, ever changing rotational speed around it's pivot point (i.e. No change of rotation rate which would require a force applied against the MOI). To me that is a function of horizontal bearing friction, not vertical, and the MOI is a 'force' which offsets the 'force' of compliance (a 'springiness' is not a force in and of itself, but when the 'springiness' is applied to an immovable object (the record groove), the compliance exerts a force on the cart body at the cantilever pivot, and this force is therefore applied to that end of the tonearm span in a non-consistent way.
I do not see in any of this why MOI is the over-riding issue for why longer arms would be theoretically inferior than shorter arms with similar resonant qualities where the only difference was MOI. |
Happy birthday Raul.
T_bone, I think the problem is conceptual. ***I understand the underslung counterweight. I do not see the connection with arm length. I see the potential that longer arms have a higher MOI. I have not heard/seen any answer yet as to why a higher MOI is NECESSARILY bad.*** Within the context of any given arm mass, having the lowest possible MOI is desirable. The time constant refers to the length of the arm, cartridge to bearings. It is the amount of time it takes the bearings to respond to movements of the cartridge.
This is from Wikipedia: "The moment of inertia of an object about a given axis describes how difficult it is to change its angular motion about that axis. Therefore, it encompasses not just how much mass the object has overall, but how far each bit of mass is from the axis. The farther out the object's mass is, the more rotational inertia the object has, and the more force is required to change its rotation rate."
The cartridge is constantly moving toward the center of the record. The axis is the arm bearings and the arm is the radius. In reality it's also tracking in three dimensions, so not only vertical movement is included but also angular movement. Stereo grooves are cut at 45 degrees. Thinking of the cartridge as stationary with the cantilever and tip doing all the movement, is incorrect. The body of the cartridge is constantly moving.
Compliance is not a force. It's a measure of springiness and describes how the suspension reacts. Whether you have a high mass/stiff cart or a low mass/springy cart, lowest possible MOI is desirable. Think of it in this case as arm bearing reaction time. Regards, |
Thank you Lewm:
Now that you mention it, Raul does rate 1 thru 10 with 10 being highest. I should have realize that with his Empire 4000DIII rating that he has given as a 10+. Must have been a brain fart on my part! I also appriciate information on the Azden. I had passed on the Adzen because there was no mention or picture of the cartridge with the adapter. Knowing now that there are other alternatives (eBay P-mount adapters), I will grab the next one I find. Thanks again. |
David, You and I obviously agree on the physics regarding the principal 'reason' suggested above for why longer arms are 'worse' than shorter arms. The 'head' of the tonearm is NOT supposed to be 'responsive' to the cart's nano-movements. I also agree that in selecting 'appropriate' arm MOI one will usually 'start with' the cart/cantilever/sprung system (your point about platter/mat damping is good, and I would add there is an element of vinyl composition and probably of room temperature, for both the vinyl and the cart dampers).
I will grant you that there are strong theoretical attractions to a linear arm. I have used a couple of excellent old Japanese DD linear trackers (still have them). I am convinced that with a very short arm, flat/centered records, and a VERY frictionless bearing, one can obtain fantastic results. The 'practical limitations' of the arm/pivot mount and tangential arm bearing friction/resonance suggest to me you may be right about high compliance being more desirable in this case.
I do not come to the same practical conclusion with pivot arms. This may be due to my lack of experience. It may be due to the relatively low number of off-center records I play. I have tried dozens of carts in a dozen-plus (actually probably two-dozen-plus) arms (though not all possible combinations) over the past several years but I have not found the 'best possible arm' for high compliance carts. It may be that proper matching of MOI, cantilever/cart resonances, bearing and arm materials/interfaces trumps higher weight's impact on bearing friction/stiction. It may be that i have not come across a very lightweight arm which had the combination of extreme armwand rigidity, low structural resonance, and good bearings. It may be that those arms are not sufficiently damped. The best arms I have for the highest compliance carts I have in my stable are probably my EA-3 with straight arm, and my modded EPA-100Mk2. I have, in the past, also gotten superlative sound out of the Max-237 with some very high compliance carts, despite it's obvious weaknesses. |
A few responses re your questions to Raul: (1) Is a rating of 5 better or worse than a rating of 6/7? I believe that Raul goes from low to high, so the FL would therefore be superior to the E in R's opinion. So why buy the E stylus? (2) Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood may or may not be great. IMO, Clearaudio cartridges have a family sound. Maybe that's what you hear. It is not to my own personal liking. Anyway, this thread is heavily weighted toward vintage cartridges, which why you don't see much about the VW. Recently, Raul had some nice things to say about the Ortofon OM Black. Others have said good things about several of the current top line Grado MMs (or IMs) and the SoundSmith MI cartridges. (3) The Azden is a P-mount that comes new with its own adapter. If you bought a used one, maybe you did not also get the adapter. On eBay you can buy P-mount adapters and they can be made to work with Azden, altho a little surgery to the adapter may be required.
Raul, You are right to indulge your grand-daughter, but clowns scare me, and I always worry that those trapeze artists will fall. |
Well Happy Birthday Raul. I hope you have many, many more! |
I have questions, some of which I would like to direct to Raul, and others to whom ever has experience with the cartridges I want to discuss. 1) Hi Raul, I have a Ortofon M20FL that you have given a rating of 6/7. The M20e you have give a rating of 5. Is their sufficent enough difference between the 2 ratings to warrent replacing the "FL" stylus with the "e" version. Before you answer, let me say that I have had stylus changes (AT15sa to a AT20ss), that I could tell upon the 1st note that there was a meaningful improvement. I have also had stylus changes that unlike you, have taken me many hours of listening before I could decide that I prefered stylus "B" over stylus "A". Not that one was better than the other, but I just prefered one over the other. 2) I have a Signet TK7Ea with a broken cantilever. I have found one source that has the ATN-155LC stylus for sale ($285), that I could install on this. Other sources recomment that I use the AT440MLa stylus ($120). Then there is the Audio Technica AT-7V which if my sources are correct, say is the same cartridge as my Signet TK7Ea. LP Tunes has the whole cartridge and stylus listed for $129. Is their a perfered choice out of this bunch, that is truly better, or would we be just looking at different prefered colorations. 3) Many years ago, I wore out the stylus on a Empire 4000DIII and filed it away. I had stupidly moved onto MC's, buying into the hype at they were the better design. While reading this tread, I ran across a large section that talked about this cartridge and I understand that Raul gave it a 10+ rating. I found a Static 4000DIII replacement on ebay, and have since ressurected my Empire. I still haven't picked my chin up from the floor. This cartridge is 10 times better than what I remember. Because of this and other cartridges that I have tried, I have come to the conclusion that the whole range of cartridges that this thread has talked about were far better than the equipment (turntables, arms, and phono amps), that they were connected to! I dumped my Stanton 881s for a MC. Traded my Micro Acoustic 3002 for,----,I don't remember but I'm sure is was some so called latest and greatest MC. Sold my Grace F9! Someone please shoot me!! 3) I have a Clearaudio Virtuoso Wood, being a much hyped MM by the audio press, hasn't been discussed much here. Any reason why? To throw in my 2 cents worth, I would like to say that I think it is a great cartridge, but not a great MM cartridge. To me, it sound alot like the MC's I have. Why would someone design a MM cartridge to sonicly mimic a MC. It just doesn't make since to me! More sales I quess? 4) Last but not least, the Adzen YM-P50vl. Is this a "P" mount only style cartridge? Can't seem to find one thats not! I have picked up a Empire 4000DIII body mounted on a ELAC headshell. I have a Graham arm with extra wands, therefor I doubt if I would ever use this headshell. If someone would like to have this, I will send it to you (FREE). |
Dear Lewm: My birthday is tomorrow and normally we have at my place a close fiends/family reunion that always every one comes because my wife prepare typical dinner from our birth town Oaxaca and this means: a very special cheese made in Oaxaca name it " quesillo ", black beans small " tamales ", " chapulines " that are cricket/fetters ( just delicious as everything. ) and the main meal: black Oaxacaqueño Mole ( in Oaxaca exist no less than 20 kind of Moles with a unique Oaxaca taste. Not all the Moles in different México regions taste the same. ) all these along Mezcal from Oaxaca and Mariachis.
Well, unfortunately for our normal guests, this time my granddaugther ( five years old. ) call me to tell that she wants to invite me to " feast " my day at the circus as a present by her to me and I can't refuse so tomorrow we will enjoy the Atayde circus and the party with our friends has to wait for another time. Btw, last time I attended to an old fashion circus was at least 40 years ago.
Lewm my sincere thank's to you.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dlaloum, the good thing is there are many ways to Rome. I had some experiments with ultra light arms too but when I was able listening to heavy arms I changed my preferences completely. If you have good matching carts with long heavy arms this is for me the King`s way - also reaching very very little distortion. But to speak with Nandric there is also a Kardinal´s way or even one of a lonely wandering priest...
best & fun only |
|
Dear Atlasiris: Appreciated, thank you.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Dalolum: Yes, with the cartridge. Now that you bring here the linear tracking tonearm option to apivot one maybe is time that I can borrow from one of my friends a tangential one.
In the past my take was that in all of the oportunities that I had to heard linear tracking tonearms ( in my system and other systems. ) my main concern was that its low bass performance was a little on the " soft " way when in pivoted tonearms the bass response was with more grip/power and better foundation. In those times I did not tested cartridge tracking ability and could be interesting to test it and find out its performance against a pivoted one.
I don't have enough time to make these kind of tests but as soon I can I will try.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
T-Bone - no don't crack open your previous FR-7.... taxidermise it, embed it a slab of perspex and put it on display in a museum case - with all the other dinosaurs.... then get a "modern" arm... (tongue firmly in cheek).
You are quite right, regardless of the approach everything needs to be designed to work together. An ultra short ultra low MOI linear arm, would of course require an ultra high compliance cartridge, and preferably a very lightweight one.
So yes it is a question of appropriate MOI rather than small or large.
Regardless of the compliance and MOI level - there WILL be a resonance - given that it is a sprung system - and that is the nature of the beast. (unless you have perfectly flat records, and can therefore play them with an unsprung infinitely massy arm.... that is lala land material) So you will always need various mechanisms to damp the resonances (even if they are well located and of relatively low amplitude, the resonance will always be there - and will be intermodulating with the desired signals - so it needs to be damped/controlled)
So 1) You need to have a properly chosen MOI to match compliance and other parameters of the system and 2) you need to have some form of damping to control the resonance.
But in selecting the appropriate MOI, and choosing which way to go - we should look at the advantages and disadvantages of Low vs High compliance designs. Which may also include looking at the advantages and disadvantages of wire suspended cantilevers (usually low to mid compliance) to free moving cantilevers like the ADC's (usually high compliance.... exclusively high compliance?).
And obviously we need to discuss both lateral as well as vertical compliance.
And I think that discussion must begin with the cartridge and NOT the arm.... and going further, it must begin with the cantilever and its suspension and damping - and then work back from there. (possibly also including Platter/Mat as another source of damping that may influence the stylus)
Looking at it from my perspective - I think that the closest to ideal system has to be High and preferably very high compliance - free moving (no wire suspension) - and with an ultra light arm (lowest possible MOI) having minimum friction, with a controlled damping mechanism (I like servo damping, but fluid damping can also be controlled), in a Linear tracking arm...
And I can work through the logic of why I believe each of the selections to be the right ones in that list and in the right order within that list.
bye for now
David |
Dear Raul, We are used to talk about 'relationship'in binary constructions: 'one side versus the other'; 'subjective versus objective',etc. Frege put it this way: 'concept is an function with one argument, the relation are functions with two or more arguments'. Ie why should we use only binary constructions? He also proposed to view the 'world of knowledge' as the 'third world'. The first world is of physical states; the second of our psychology or mental states while the third is the world of the contents of thought. When you post your thoughts they are expressed in sentences or propositions. As such they become for us 'objective' in the sense that we can think about them, reread them if we need to, interprete them and value them in accordance to our own individual capabilties. Your statements have the physical representation in the writen shape. In this sense they are objective. We are interested in the objective content of your thoughts as expressed not in your psychology. This apply I think for all the post we read. But because of the limitations inherent to the binary realtionship we get this 'paradox'. When we recognise your presupposed 'subjective thoughts' as 'our own' we need to use the expression 'intersubjective' to refer to. Well 'intersubjective' is also called 'public' or 'common' and as such must be something that is objective.
Regards, |
|
Dear friends: The subject that I mentioned about SUBJECTIVITY was trying to imply that subjectivity as stand alone could means almost nothing if not came along with some objectivity content in the same case that objectivity can't have almost any " weight " with out subjectivity content.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: +++++ " I losed the " exiting and dynamic " ( WOW factor. ) that I had before that wire changes. Fortunately I did not desesperate and followed through more days listening my system till my ears " accustom " to the lower distortions. " ++++
this is what I posted on the SAECs and what I mean is that the higher distortions ( " exiting and dynamic" / WOW factor. ) I had before the re-wire change were loosed ( fortunately. ) but because I was unaware of this distortion subject I was disapointement but after few days running the SAEcs with lower distortion ( because better wires. ) I accustom to this lower distortions and that was a learning lesson and a way that high and low distortions manifest and our perception of it. The experience SAECs re-wire were a success in those times. In the other side today I almost don't deal any more with 12" tonearms, my experiences with tell me is not the best way to pick up what is in the recording with the lowest distortions we can. Of course that I'm following in this " research "/12" subject and maybe things could change in the future.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Dear Fleib, I am not sure what you mean by 'time constant between bearing and stylus'. Is it measurable or definable in any way? The headshell of a long arm takes exactly the same time to move from outer groove to inner groove as the headshell on a short, low MOI, arm. |
I stipulate the following points and conditions: 1) there is no PERFECT arm. 2) Some arms are better than others (they introduce less distortion into a system) with a given cart. 3) when discussing a 'better' design WITHOUT KEEPING OTHER FACTORS CONSTANT (such as cart or cart compliance) I assume it is universally better, not just better with a fixed compliance. 4) All discussions assume the record is flat and not off-center.
Dear Raul and Fleib, I did not mention the 'third dimension' because I thought it obvious. Styli move up and down and left and right. Tonearm pivots do too. Assuming the record is perfectly flat AND the record is perfectly-centered, the reason why tonearm pivots MUST move from side to side is to track from outer groove to inner groove. The reason why they MUST move up and down is because the record is cued up and down. Carts have both vertical and horizontal compliance. Compliance is a force. Music is neither constant in frequency nor amplitude so the cantilever applies all kinds of fast-moving forces at the cantilever pivot. That's the point. Nobody has yet explained why the stylus end of the tonearm is SUPPOSED to move WITH the stylus. If it does, a 'better' tonearm (one which most closely approximates perfect even though there is no perfect) will move with the same speed as the stylus will. This means the cantilever/magnet/coil is not moving in relation to the body/coil/magnet. This means no music.
Raul, Regarding my 3rd point, I think discussion of length of tonearm wire as different than changing headshell wires and observing a difference. The 'improvement' of shortening a tonearm from 12" to 9" in order to shorten the length of wire that a tiny wire passes through is just as easily accomplished by shortening the phono cord at the RCA end. I do not think that the tonearm-shortening effort has a measurable impact on signal accuracy because of less wire.
Fleib, I understand the underslung counterweight. I do not see the connection with arm length. I see the potential that longer arms have a higher MOI. I have not heard/seen any answer yet as to why a higher MOI is NECESSARILY bad.
David, This DOES get interesting. Just because 'high-compliance-is-king' existed does not mean that it actually was theoretically better. And the fact that we now start talking about levels of compliance - i.e. levels of force - in combination with lower levels of arm effective mass means we can also say that lower compliance necessitates higher MOI.
Your idea of 'encouraging' some level of friction vs stiction in order to counter resonance, or using fluid damping, is all an effort to provide an 'increase' in force countering the forces applied on the tonearm by the forces applied by the cantilever on the cantilever pivot point where it 'meets' the cart body. They are all raising "Effective MOI." This goes to my point above, that tonearm designers/users will seek to control resonance a variety of ways. Chief among those will be correct matching of forces (i.e. APPROPRIATE MOI, not LOWEST POSSIBLE MOI).
I understand why some people say low compliance carts track badly. I view it as the fact they have not used the appropriate arm. I do not find my lowest compliance carts track particularly badly.
Regarding your point (b) on linear tracking arms.... Assuming the arm length is as short as the headshell (which is mounted on a linear bar/rail/trough/air bearing), how does one set appropriate MOI assuming an EXTREMELY low lateral friction? Does one want the lowest possible MOI? The highest? Or the appropriate amount to counter cantilever force on the bearing connection? One certainly does not want the lowest possible weight of cart body with lowest possible friction with a cantilever compliance lower than the highest humanly possible.
Have I got this all wrong? Should my beloved FR-7f be cracked open like a lobster, mounted on a balsa shell and mounted on my AT1100 with a gold nugget stuck on the counterweight? |
Dear T_bone: Problem is that you think that the stylus is moving side to side only but movements ( the " system " is dynamic. ) down there are more than side to side but up an down too. There is a feedback from the tonearm because the tonearm is not floating but fix at the pivot. As I posted this whole subject needs more in deep research before we even can have a model/simulation to obtain conclusions.
There are several factors that has influence in the cartridge tracking ability and maybe a first step could be determine all these inside cartridge factors and then the ones cartridge is surrounded including the very wide differences between different LP tracks and where in the LP the cartridge is working. All in all complex and I don't know you but I have no answers this time.
Next week I will have a meeting with my friend that works in the Science area in the University of México and I will put on desk this subject and see if they could help me if I give him a TT/tonearm/cartridge set up to investigate what we are trying to find out. The University has all the resources/tools to make the work if this guy accept and have the time with his colleages then we could have something there.
About your third answer I think I don't understand it so weel. We all know that when we change the headshell wires ( 2". ) the sound changes so IMHO we have to worry having the short path need it to the cartridge signal in this unamplified stage: less is more here.
Now, I touch the tonearm issue because has influence in the cartridge tracking result but the main subject is to talk about the importance of the cartridge tracking ability and what we perceive as a result of different cartridge tracking ability levels.
Regards and enjoy the music, Raul. |
Hi T_bone, When most of us conceptualize tracking we probably think of the cartridge (tip) in two dimensions at a time. In reality tracking is three dimensional. The cartridge and arm are constantly moving both horizontally and vertically. Thinking only in terms of compliance (springiness) is not adequate for understanding.
***This is, as far as I can tell (from my completely non-AHEE and still layman physics education about turntable/tonearm/cart/cantilever/stylus/groove physics), completely wrong. If the theory were right, then the ultimate tonearm would have zero mass and zero bearing friction. This would leave us with no music.***
No one is talking about the "ultimate" tonearm. It doesn't exist. Within the confines of real world record playing there are advantages and disadvantages with longer arms. The advantages are slightly lower tracking angle error and reduced SRA/VTA differences with warps. The disadvantage is worse MOI. I'm sure you're aware of the advantage of an underslung counterweight with arms that have bearings above the plane of the record. Arm length can be seen as part of the same thing. There is an increased time constant between bearings and stylus with longer arms. Regards, |
This is an interesting topic... T_Bone - with regards to item 1) Lower moment of inertia with near zero friction... Isn't that exactly what was being aimed for in the best arms of the late 70's and early 80's? The High Compliance is King era? Like everything in analogue perfection is impossible - but there were (are) arms that achieve effective mass of under 6g... and a number that achieve around or under 4g. - I would assume that along with an effective mass of that level will come a much lower moment of inertia.
Lower bearing stiction I agree with - but lower friction not necessarily as a level of damping is valuable in assisting the control of the arm/cartridge resonances - it does need to be the right kind of friction.
And this is where we come up with the theoretical impossibilities - best from one perspective is zero friction, but achieving that will exacerbate another aspect (arm/cartridge resonance) so you either design some friction into the system or you design it as a minimum friction system and then attach an artificial friction system (fluid/servo damping).
With regards to a longer arm... the resonant frequencies will be altered - so differing arm damping solutions will be required - the more damping is applied (and I am talking HF damping rather than the LF fluid damping) - the more mass is added to the arm. - Another case where the gain of reduced tracking error through arm length needs to be balanced with increased mass which causes a different set of issues.
You can of course balance the increased mass with lowered compliance - but then you tend to also lower tracking ability at lower frequencies (more swings and roundabouts!)
I hate to say it but the vinyl world was, in the early 80's, racing towards linear tracking systems.... only to hit the brick wall of digital. The funding for R&D dried up overnight, leaving boutique development (which has not ceased, but rate of change/progress is very very low) a) With linear tracking angular tracking error becomes a non issue. b) with linear tracking the arm length can be minimal and therefore the arm mass can be reduced (eg: Revox Linatrack... the headshell is the arm!). Keeping in mind that a linear tracking arm transport can pivot or be positioned to travel directly over the record surface (like the many clamshell TT's with the arm in the lid, or the Revox) allowing vestigial arms. Many current linear trackers have long(er) arms (and therefore higher mass) due to the arm tracking system residing off the record.
If we are talking about the ideal arm for some of the sophisticated cartridge - and aiming for high tracking capabilities, etc.... Why are we talking about prehistoric pivoted arm designs (flame proof armor activated...). Yes, crocodiles are a successful prehistoric dinosaur that survives to this day... but I'll take a predatory mammal as my preferred and more advanced/evolved choice. (and yes I know I am playing very loose with evolutionary concepts.... it's just a metaphor playing on common evolutionary mythology of linear "progress")
Why not instead discuss the ways to select, design, build or optimise a linear tracking arm - it is a better starting point ultimately for a perfect design.
Also the patents for all the great linear tracking arms of the 70's and 80's have all expired - all this technology is sitting out there begging for someone to use it! And some of these patents include designs for systems that were never commercialised - and which were too difficult to commercialise without advanced digital control systems - which are now very economical. eg: JVC patented a method of correcting for record centering (a la Nakamichi Dragon CT) - but using platter speed control in combination with arm mounted sensors... (ok not a directly relevant "arm" example, and it would require a very special kind of platter drive, with very precise speed control and perhaps a lower mass platter for rapid response - an interesting engineering approach which went off on a complete tangent from everything else....fascinating!!) Revox had an electro-magnetic arm servo damping system described and patented for the Linatrack arm - never produced. And there are the Linear tracking Sony biotracers - all that complex circuitry would now be built into a couple of digital control chips - making it simple and economical... etc...
I look at this and I think that the whole discussion is talking about how to improve a dinosaur - a very effective dinosaur - but we have better starting points today than were common in the 70's.
bye for now
David |
Dear Raul, I can't really follow your explanation why longer arms should produce more distortion. maybe you can explain this is in short if you like. I am a bit puzzled hearing from you that the rewiring of your SAEC arms did not lead to good results. We will be not able to find out what was the reason herefore in your system but I can tell you from my experience if it is well done it is a big difference and not one with more distortion - not at all. Maybe you should try again - just a suggestion.
Best & Fun Only |
Dear Raul, If we filter out everything you said about AHEE and the rest, what you are saying is that.., 1) the stylus-end of the tonearm is supposed to 'react' (i.e. move) when the stylus is moving. If the stylus is moving side to side, then the 'perfect' arm will react/move 'faster' and will, ideally, move side-to-side with the stylus. This is the advantage of lower moment of inertia combined with lower bearing friction/stiction. 2a) longer tonearm wands resonate 'more', 2b) longer tonearm wands require 'better specific damping' that necessarily affect cart performance negatively, 3) longer tonearms require the very tiny analog signal to pass through an extra length of wire, to the detriment of maintaining a truly accurate signal.
My responses would be: 1) This is, as far as I can tell (from my completely non-AHEE and still layman physics education about turntable/tonearm/cart/cantilever/stylus/groove physics), completely wrong. If the theory were right, then the ultimate tonearm would have zero mass and zero bearing friction. This would leave us with no music. 2) I am not sure about this one. I don't know the physics here exactly, but a tonearm is effectively a span, a bridge if you will, with structural 'supports' at the stylus and the pivot/bearing. In my understanding of the physics of span resonance, longer spans don't resonate 'more', they resonate differently. Again, I am not certain of the physics, but I think that most good tonearm wands will seek to reduce resonance through materials selection, damping, interfaces, and appropriate force-matching rather than through shortening the armwand. 2b) no comment here. I haven't thought about it enough yet. 3) I think this one is a bit over the top. If we are worrying about the extra 3cm of tonearm/phono cable degrading the tiny signal, we have a very, very, high-quality problem (i.e. we have solved every other problem out there. I would say in a practical sense, this issue is non-existent for MMs as well.
All of this assumes, of course, a record centered around the spindle hole... |
at different recorded velocities with a wide range of frequency.
R. |
Dear Halcro: The arm should be neutral but in real world is not neutral and that's is the issue.
T_bone, the whole subject is not only mathematical but IMHO first than all to take a real picture of what is happening nano-second by nano-second down the stylus tip running on the groove to analyze the stylus tip needs and what is asking for from the tonearm. The task is to create a model on computer ( scientific/mathematical. ) where all those true/real cartridge needs are taking in count and only to define in precise way these cartridge needs is a hard work/proccess way before we can go on with the tonearm relationship and tonearm ideal effective length. I don't know and can't remember of some one that already attempted to research and develop on the whole subject, I wish some one could do it. Not an easy task considering the unknow " road " on each music recorded LP track that the stylus tip have to " translate " with full accuracy.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Dear T_bone: First reason is what Fleib posted and this is critical and makes a paramount difference against a shorter tonearm. For a cartridge nano-seconds of tonearm delayed response could means " hours " at our dimension, we have to think on the microscopic tip " dimension "/stage where it works with those terrific kind of acceleration of 2k G and the random changes of direction in any direction: the carrtridge asking tonearm response is something of " live or die " stage and 2" longer distance between stylus tip and tonearm bearing are for the cartrridge needs as " 2k km. " for us.
In the other side there are at least two other reasons for increasing distortions, one is that resonances increase with more distance ( threough the arm wand. )and needs a better specific damping that affect in different ways the carrtruidge signal performance, other reason is that the signal has to " advance " more distance through tonearm wires where lose its integrity and where there is more chance to be contaminated: we have to remember that at this stage the cartridge signal is un-amplified with very low output that makes it very sensitive and delicate even for 2" additional distance. There are other issues in there.
Now, all those disadvantages in change of what? there is no clear advantage in a longer tonearms and the in theory lower tracking error is only that because in the very first moment that the stylus hit the LP grooves and due to the fully imperfect medium that in theory advantage came almost to cero advantage.
IMHO and through several experiences with different tonearms that 12" advantage myth is only that a myth supported for the AHEE I can say for the worst part of the darkness of the AHEE that through deceit we honest and in good faith people are making money: corrupted money.
T_ bone as I learn more as I'm more dissapointement of what I learned through the AHEE where today I know 70%-80% of what " I learned " are un-true statements un-true/false facts deceit on porpose myths and the like. Unfortunately almost all audiophiles still believe on what they learned through the AHEE because I think it is a confortable seat to see the show instead to be protagonist of that high-end show, pity for say the least.
Think for a moment that the AHEE decide stop to deceit us an begin to be honest and truer than ever: can you imagine what could happen with our today high-end status that was developed under arguably circumstances? could you imagine what could happen when the AHEE start to talk and teach about DISTORTIONS, MEASUREMENTS, ACCURACY, TRUE NEUTRALITY, INDUSTRY STANDARDS TO ACOMPLISH BY EVERY AUDIO MANUFACTURER AN REVIEWERS, STANDARDS WORKING AS REFERENCE FOR ANY COMPARISON AUDIO ITEMS and leaving the today " stupid " SUBJECTIVITY only as a second " side ".
This subjectivity promoted by the AHEE is the culprit of our whole audio/music ignorance that permit we live deceited for the dark side of the AHEE in favor not of the music or in favor not of we customers but in favor only of that AHEE heavy corrupted dark side.
Fortunately exist the white side on the AHEE and even that is smaller one is the one that I hope can have the " weight " to improve and develop the AHEE from what we have today.
Regards and enjoy the music, raul. |
Fleib,
I am not sure who is the "many" who "feel" that between 9 and 10.5" is optimal. I would be interested in understanding the math of why they may feel that way though...
If we assume, for a second, that the record is stamped correctly (around the spindle hole), how much is the arm supposed to "respond" to stylus/cartridge movements on a micro basis? My answer is "very little." The arm is supposed to pivot on its bearings to allow the cartridge to travel across the record and therefore I can understand bearing friction/stiction being an issue. I am not sure I see moment of inertia being that significant an issue, especially for low-compliance carts - it is more an issue of matching the horizontal compliance of the cart to the moment of inertia.
The moment of inertia issue starts impacting playback MUCH more significantly on off-center records because the tracking "center" is moving back and forth. However, this too is a matter of matching horizontal compliance of the cart with the effective mass of the arm. Too low a compliance cart combined with too low a moment of inertia and we start having playback problems (imagine, for a moment, an arm with zero inertia and zero bearing friction) so there truly is an offset.
Does anyone have a mathematical answer for where that offset is, so that one can demonstrate that with increasing tonearm length, in order to have an equally appropriate "response" time (and I'm still not sure I like the concept of 'faster' response time being the right wording - I think it is probably more like 'appropriate force'), the optimal effective weight decreases by X?
This sounds like a question for Mark Kelly... |
the slower the arm responds to the stylus/cartridge movements. I thought the arm should be 'neutral'.......allowing the stylus to perform all the movements unhindered? If the arm "responds"........ Information must be added or subtracted n'est pas? |
Hi T_bone, The longer the distance between the stylus and the bearings, the slower the arm responds to the stylus/cartridge movements. MOI (moment of inertia) gets worse with increasing arm length. The advantage of reduced tracking angle error is slight compared to arms of around 9.25" and longer. Many feel that somewhere between 9 and 10.5" is optimal. Regards, |