Hi Axel, great idea !!
Go carry on - you are certainly on the right path.
Musing and watching,
D. |
Dear Perrew, I am very sorry, but the tonearm you mentioned is a design I will not comment for obvious reasons.
Some of those reasons were just mentioned by you in your last post......
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Bob, well - there were hard discussions in that thread already back in march/april, - but between you and Raul some hard and direct words were exchanged and I can see no other reason for the shut-down of that thread.
I have talked with 2 seasoned and very experienced A'goners and they both agreed that the exchange of direct personal insults were the raeson why the thread was shut-down.
I do not blame you - I think it is a pity that the parts which did not meet the criteria of the moderator weren't just removed and thus the thread could have go on.
Thats all.
Cheers,
D. |
Well, - after all the high-end audio is a classic luxury market. Same as high performance cars, luxury swiss watches (or german Lange & Söhne...), or any similar passion.
We are talking the extreme top-end of consumer elctronics here, thus the "value" - as well as the "beauty"... - is purely in the eyes (..ears) of the individual beholder.....
There is no reason behind this - other than it is in most cases easier to sell a $15000 tonearm than a $3500 tonearm.
The top end has to be prces today in a region where the buyer can show off his financial abilities as to gain some "face"(far-east) or status (western).
Its indeed a strange world we are living in - isn't it??
Cheers,
D. |
Dear T_bone, I assume that the "Oldskool"-thread was shut down because of the verbal insults between Raul and Bob. A pity indeed. I doubt that we will ever see again that much information about tonearm-geometry and set-up piled together in one thread here on Audiogon.
Well, as for the original matter of this thread: - marketing and the fast dollar. There are no other reasons for the current prices asked for top-flight tonearms. Material and construction as well as manufacturing costs can't justify the asking prices.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Perrew, in no particular order:
- dynamic balanced design (I consider this a must !),
- adjustable overhang and azimuth,
- very rigid construction - resulting in good energy and vibration handling,
- 10" minimum effective length to get below 2 degrees error,
I believe these are among the few key features of any great pivot tonearm design. All truely great pivot tonearms do have these 4 in common (except the Graham Phantom - which I would include in my list).
Cheers,
D. |
As for my "beloved" FR-66s - its effective moving mass can be reduced considerably by using a lighter (- Orsonic etc.) headshell. The DV XV-1s does perform outstanding good in both - the FR-64s and FR-66s. This is due to the extreme rigid design of these tonearms in conjunction with their tight bearings. This allows for exceptionell power transmission from the cartridge through the tonearm and away into the base.
These mechanical facts do give a very detailed, transparent yet ultra-dynamic sound with a very convincing "physical presence" of the sound.
Thats why almost all - save for the very lightweigt and high-compliance - cartridges do perform surprisingly well in the heavy FR-tonearms.
So - yes, the FR-tonearms are NOT ideal matches in terms of compliance, but their mechanical advantages do outweight this one non-compliant detail.
In general, the "heavy" tonearms do have plain advantages (some a bit - some a lot) in power (read: vibration emitted from the cartridge during playback) handling. This is due to their usual heavy duty (compared with lighter tonearms) bearings and to the use of steel and similar materials for the armtubes which do allow fast transient transmission.
In the very end, a tonearm performance comes always down to and is always rooted in its mechanical and geometrical cornerstones.
In any comparism, always take care that the cartridge is aligned to the very same geometry in all the tonearms under survey.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel, - I am sorry, but I do not need to comment on "acoustic capacitance" as understood by some audio designers and the theory that high mass does "store" energy "longer".
I do not have to give the answer - the answers are in every middle high school physics book.
Please - honestly - give me a break! - this is no high physics.
Just try a light, fragile and low mass tonearm and tell me it gives more detailed and dynamic sound than a FR or SAEC or MAX or Exclusive - I am in for a good laugh.
After my experiences with the bearing friction thread I am simply no longer in the mood to discuss plain nonsense or "audio physics".
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Perrew, the FR-64s is indeed the ONE BIG bargain in todays 2nd hand audio market regarding tonearms. It would still be if it were fetching $3000. The FR-66s is simply so rare. Production numbers of the FR-66s are less then 1/30th of the FR-64s. Its rarity. The performance is on a par with very slight differences only notceable in direct comparism.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel, lets make it simple: buy a FR-64s and simply compare it with careful set-up with some of the other tonearms you mentioned (I already did...).
When you've done so, we can talk that subject and the "facts" which are not in "my physics" book again.
But then, it won't nessecary any longer....
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Halcro, dear Perrew, the task building a tonearm or a TT hasn't changed at all in the past 30 years. Computer "analysis" in our days is - in comparism to the period between 1985 and 1995 - cheaper by a magnitue. Frankly - your avarage computer at home today has enough capacities to be able to calculate the journey to the moon in 1969 in all needed details. We can assume it will be suitable for all needed calculations and "analysis" to design a decent TT or tonearm too.
This is not expensive.
Sorry.
Despite what the marketing alpha dogs (I too studied this and hold a master degree in marketing communications...... and feel guilty...) try to convince the public in - the needed tools for truely great design in analog playback was available before Bill Gates got rid of his pampers.
And it was always available to everyone who finished high school and had a basic understanding of mechanics and dynamics under the influence of gravity.
Again - this is all BASIC physics.
The big problem still is, that most designers do try to design "around" the "physic" thus avoiding BIG costs (doing the opposite what they are claim to do in their advertising).
A truely great turntable will always: - be very heavy, demand excellent, very precise (= expensive...) tooling of very heavy parts (platter), ask for several very expensive materials, demand for a regulated and large periphery to isolate the TT from the "building resonance".
A great tonearm will ask for high rigidy, fast transmission of energy, rigid bearings which are able to further transport the energy away from the arm, precise tooling and materials. Try to make a FR-66s (here we go again....) with its B-60 today. I had the B-60 vta base calculated from a company specilized in precision tooling in Karlsruhe - even with production lot of 150 units and the complete blue print at hand, the unit costs were still EURO 620 (which is $900 today...).
Yes Perrew - you are right.
Modern day electronics do play close to zero role in analog compared to digital, were they are at home and the integral part of the units per se.
We should all keep in mind that the retail price of top-flight audio equipment today has a lot to do with marketing politics and image. Add to this the fact that impoter and dealer do want a big share of the cake and we a close to the truth......
Dear halcro, the DaVinci is not great. It is good in todays terms, but leaves several aspects of improvement in its design (you named one of them). Syntax, Heradot, Thuchan and 2 other friends of mine here in southern Germany to use the DaVinci - always with good results.
Never with great ones.
Its nice to look at and gives good results with a very wide varity of cartridges.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Axel, dear Halcro, - we do not need to get on terms in this discussion. If your point of view do differ from mine - fine with me.
And sorry again - the examples are off topic.
We aren't talking nano-mechanics here nor micro-optics or complex cable structures and - BTW - concrete was invented by the Romans too. They were really gifted engineers in their prime period.
My basic point is, that the design of a great (in terms of sound) TT or tonearm is - well... - simple.
Do do neither need computer nor digital equipment to design or put together either one.
These two are really fairly easy mechanical devices - where is the problem? I can not see the need for high-tech equipment nor for big sientific computers here.
Its brain we need - something apparently becoming increasingly less available in our days.
Do I need to constantly defend the FR-60 tonearms simply because Raul doesn't like their sound in his 10+ years memory ?
While other audiophiles like Thuchan, Syntax, Heradot with equally sophisticated set-up and all modern Skool tonerarms at hand do prefer their FR-tonearms and for good reason?
Ever given taht a thought - why should they prefer the FR over their other tonearms? Just to anoy other audiophiles? Get serious.
The proof?
There is onyl one possible and non-virtual proof:
Visit me - bring along the SME V, DaVinci or any Continuum together with your favourite cartridge.
Bring further with you some time.
I will set-up your prefered tonearm / cartridge combination and fine tune real fast and most likely you will hear your toy on all time new highs in terms of its sonic performance.
I won't stop till you agree that this is the best you've heard so far.
Then we will switch to the FR-66/Fr-7fx combo and you will loose all faith in modern day audio forever.
I know it - I have watched it happen several times and all with top-flight competitors.
See you here (now I am off for a weekend holiday with my family) some day !
Cheers,
D. |
Dear fellow audiophiles, let me give a final statement to all those, who enjoy and believe in the constant progress and evolution in low-tech mechanics and modern day marketing (which incidently is my profession....):
"mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur!"
No, - its not the Roman's this time........... a fellow countryman of mine from some 5 centuries back.
For those who weren't pained by Latin in their schooldays, there is always Wikipedia...... ;-)
Enjoy sunday music,
D. |
Dear Axel, ....rather the implication, that I very well realize the mechanisms of the game.... |
Dear T_bone, glad to see you back. Its not roman origin this time (but I admit - it would fit...), but swiss/german 15th century renaissance satirc essay in latin (not uncommon back then).
The damping is the more effective the softer the material in conjunction with surface area covered and how "sticky" the damping really is (blue-tech et al....).The usual chewing gum-like material does "eat" up some of the vibration by transfer in heat (no joke! - same method as Sorbothane - vibration (=energy) transfered into heat (=energy).
This is of course hardly measureable, but its the way it works.
Other way of damping a tonearm is heat skrink pipe - large area and good damping. This is an old trick on the SME V (Axel !!) to eliminate its vibration peak towards the bearing (blue-tech works fine too).
Often far more effective than any damping by oil-filled through.
Cheers,
D. |
Hello Axel, adding 2 and 2 does not necessarily adds up to 5.
You should give your own findings and the above description a - long and deep - 2nd thought........
Awaiting your revison.
You'll find out.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel,
I do not want to conduct your thoughts and ways of thinking, but let me once again encourage you to carry on musing about this topic ......... the "problem" is not yet solved, but it is becoming increasingly entertaining to watch.
You are not yet on the right boat and you are still heading in the wrong direction.
However - as long as you think you are fine and you believe to be on track ....... that direction is totally fine with me.
BTW - the one single "issue" of the FR-60 tonearm series is well beyond anything you - or any other so far speculating about it on Audiogon - have ever thought about.
You know that nice little 3-part story about the two sientists searching for the all black cat in a pitch black windowless cellar without any light ......? ( don't think you will find it on Wikipedia at all.....)
God - I love physics !
Musing and watching ......
D. |
Hi Axel, BTW - nice idea with the low tire pressure......
I begin to realize that this is kind of general approach with several audiophiles.
But if it works for you/them - again... fine with me.
Personally I'd rather go for the high pressure/high performance option - but I guess we are talking personal preferences and taste again.
Many prefer indeed the more comfortable way with low pressure (= well cushioned...) performance.
May too be a matter of advanced age and increased problems with intervertebral disc....
Musing and watching.
D. |
Hi Perrew, it certainly would depend on the cartridge I want to use/listen to.
If the cartridge of choice would be any of the Lyras, Dynavectors, Koetus, Phase Tech or similar (means : medium to high compliance - most top-flight cartridges today do belong in this group) I would most certainly go for the MAX-282 or EA-10 as these would be the most versatile 12" tonearms and both are dynamically balanced and both can handle any cartridge weight.
I would go for the 12" versions whenever possible because of simple advantage in geometry (yes,... I know.... others have other favourites and do not see the big advantage in 12" vs 10" or 9").
But I see - and hear - it.
I would always go for a dynamically balanced tonearm ( the physic advantage is again obvious and beyond serious discussion (in real world applications as well as in the theoretical - again: if others have different opinions ... fine with me, I neither want to "know" nor "learn" their point of view. That is way past me.).
So - yes, it comes down to these two very similar designs.
Not because they are vintage, but because they are the most versatile and do offer the 2 key design features I know will give superior results and sound.
Cheers,
D. |
Peter, all I could add to what I have written in the post in your inital thread, would be theoretical background and a dive into dynamic vs. static mechanics. I have learned in the past 4 months on Audiogon that these theoretical backgrounds aren't really welcome.
When using a dynamically balanced tonearm and the user can not hear the difference between static balanced and dynamic balanced mode - then I strongly recommend improving the overall resolution of the entire system.
If one can't hear it, it doesn't mean its not there.
In another system the same listener would hear it quite easy.
The technical advantage is indisputable and everybody would realize (...well, may be not everybody...) as soon as the dynamic behaviour of the cantilever/tonearm while tracking a grooved record is laid down on a sheet of paper.
This is the one big problem in all discussions here - everybody has his (don't think there is any "her" around...?) subjective, yet imperial, experience of sound and assumes in those moments when some part (= component) is "under review", that the rest of the system is as good as it gets.
In any case he assumes that the rest of the system is NOT under review, but only the "new" part.
When the entire chain is of the highest resolution (hard to achive....) then the difference between dynamic balanced mode vs. static balanced mode becomes obvious and the practical result meets the theoretical advantage.
There will be others around who disagree, but that is their problem - neither mine nor the problem of "oldskool" physics in the Einstein Continuum.
For those who disagree - fine, please don't feel invited to explain your point of view or arguments.
I know them already and there aren't any worth serious consideration.
Cheers,
D. |
Peter, right now I am running a - modified beyond recognition... - TT consisting of a RY5500 motor, RX-3000 base with double 38 lbs platter isolated spindle from bearing and floating on silicon grease bed, counter motor and suspended on 1 Hz air-cushion.
My own final assault on the topic TT is under construction and I will pulish a few pictures in early winter when finished.
Cheers,
D. |
The "final assault" is a combination of magnetic isolation and air cushion - fine tuned and stabilized at 0.5 Hz horizontal and vertical.
The platter isn't heavy - its much more than that.
The bearing is a horizontal force free string drive indeed.
This TT does adress about 6 individual issues no other TT has so far.
And all these are solved.
But its about 500 lbs net weight - not suitable for any rack.......
As you already see from these few figures - not a commercial product at all.
For a very good - no money - air cushion, you may go to the next special bike store and get fluid-filled small size (3 - 5") tires. These do give excellent isolation with very low tuning frequency and work better with all but the most heavy TT's than most of the lower priced professional isolation platforms (the higher priced ones start at US$4000....). |
Hello Axel, .... its not my problem if it does not make sense to you or some other people.
You entirely misstake me with someone caring about that ......
I give info as good as I can when honestly asked - whether it finds open minds or not is without my reach.
Whether you can value it or not - whether you or others can "compare" my "findings" and take some input out of them or not - I certainly don't care.
I have no questions - at least not in Audio.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Nandric, the point with all this disagreement about the FR-64s/FR-66s is a matter of timing .....
I am firm in my impression, that anyone who does not like the sound of the FR-64/66 or think it is colored (... this is the ONE single most neutral sounding tonearm-design on this planet - period.) or that he hears the "resonating spring" ( if you really open up a FR-60 tonearm and examine the "spring" you will soon realize, - with some deeper thoughts - that this explanation is totally nonsense - but if you look on the pictures floating on teh net you only see opened FR-housings which are NOT (no longer...) greased as designed. Too many sorcerer's apprentices around..... ) has made errors in set-up ( which is VERY easy, as the FR-60 series requires special geometry set-up and alignment and furthermore most audiophile do not care for nor do know about groove-compliant VTA ), hears missmatch or the flaws of the rest of the system.
He does certainly not hear the FR-tonearm.
I have heard over 160 high-end systems all over the western hemisphere (even in Mexico City...) - the most expensive (and there were several in this line up) far exceeding 2 million US$ retail price value. Anything from super-top-class market components of the very highest caliber and price tag to carefully set-up ultra-fidelity multi horn driver systems of extreme complexity and with "home-brewed" super-smart SET-amplifiers.
I was in Sea Cliff twice and listened to the set-ups there in a very nice private session.
I haven't seen nor heard all, but among these 150+ set-ups there weren't but one hand full of systems which were able to show all the potential of the FR-64s or FR-66s.
You need a good empty highway to appreciate the full potential of an Audi RS8 or a Ferrari - using the next B-road which wasn't serviced since 20 years might not be the right choice for a true evaluation.
But if you only know your local B-road, your experiences and expactations are different.
Fine.
If we go back 25-30 years we would find an almost universal praise in the international audio press regarding the FR-60 tonearm series.
Even the super "hardcore" - no compromise - audiophile analog frontman Mitchell A. Cotter recommended the FR-66s/FR-7 combo ONLY for his B-1 turntable.
In Germany, the US as well as the Far East the FR-60 steel tonearms were THE tonearms for low compliance cartridges and set the standard for this group of high mass tonearms.
Today the focus is very different.
These high moving mass tonearms have almost vanished from the market.
Today's top-flight moving coils call for ( in terms of matching the cartridges compliance..) medium to low mass tonearms.
Aside from K. Sugano ( who isn't among us anymore....) there is/was no cartridge designer who did favour a tonearm out-of-production for his cartridges nor yet would recommend its use.
Thats logic in all ways.
If I were a cartridge designer I would recommend tonearms ONLY which are current production and are readily available.
What cartridge manufacturer with an even remote sense for business would like to embarass todays tonearm-manufacturers by recommending a vintage design only available second hand as the optimum choice for his product ?
Its about as clever as drilling a hole in your kneecap and nailing a spare-rib there....
If Isamu Ikeda (not likely this will happen...... just a theoretical proposition...) would launch on the upcoming Rocky Mountain Audio Fair his new tonearm - and it would look just like the FR-66s and would come with an improved version of the B-60 vta-on-the-fly base - well, the absolu!e sound, Stereophile and all the other magazines would agree in universal praise again.
Why?
Because then it would be a "new and current product" - no longer a vintage tonearm of oldskool physics.....
Has anyone yet given it a thought, why so many seasoned audiophiles with many other - very expensive too - current tonearms at hand and in possesion still do favour the FR-66s........ ?
Is it likely they do so because of marketing hype or to tease other audiophiles?
Oh well......
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel, ..... entertaining........ everything off topic, but still entertaining. |
Dear Atmasphere,
well - steady tracking force while through warps....... if you look real close it is an interaction between the suspension of the cantilever and the vertical moving mass vector of the given tonearm.......
That dynamically balanced mode is simply superior in exactly this quest compared to the static mode is obvious - but if you have a different position - fine with me.
You prefer the Triplanar over the FR-66s - fine with me.
As for your explorations regarding air bearings.............. fine with me too.
I have different positions for good reason.
But my wife just reminds me that I shouldn't waste my time with problems which aren't mine...............
As Douglas Adams put it so nicely: ........ a POOP-field........Problems Of Other People..... |
Dear Halcro, you are right.
No - I won't spice up this 1st sentence with one of my over-egomanic, sarcastic, ironic, acid (or whatever...) Gunnery-Drill-Sergant (God - T_bone, that was a great one !!) follow-ups.
Even if I rather see me acting for some other people here rather as an unpleasant mirror showing their own demons reflecting back in their face.
In any case - people like you, T_bone, Kirkus, Perrew and a few other fellow Audiogoner did got nothing but clear answers and comments from me in the past 3-4 months on Audiogon in the various analog-related posts - right ?
I NEVER critizsed any other Audiogoner's System set-up featured by pictures and/or description ( certainly not because I thought they were perfect, but because it is their toy and period.), I never said to anybody here in any post that he is deaf or has wrong listening biases.
Only I am getting accused.
Did I ever asked for your listening biases or "qualification".
Nope.
My listening bias ?
A TRUE reproduction of the real thing.
Including a real space with a sense of 3-dimensionality reproduction of individual sound sources.
Uncolored etc. that is not worth further mention.
Accompanied by - and this is a VERY fascinating experience - a convincing sense of real-life physical "weight" in each singular source convincing the listener that something is actually "there".
Add real life dynamics and colorful tone and you have my bias.
So what do these omnipresent audiophile phrases help ?
Nothing.
Most would claim the same being theirs.
So we are again in "audiophile vacuum" of individual experience and individual levels and biases which none of the other can judge and value - unless sitting on the sweet spot in the room of the other in a 1st world experience.
That is the link between Syntax, Heradot and me.
We can value the comments of the others and we can understand each others point-of-view.
As for the Technics SP-10 Mk2 and Mk3 discussion: I can very well understand Porter's point-of-view and do understand as well their moves.
I know from 1st hand experience the possibilities of the SP-10 (any version) as well as its limitations ( no matter what plinth in use).
These discussions about sound and listening biases via the internet are futile to the extreme - as none (or very few...) are based on real experiences.
So what is happening here?
We are exchanging personal experiences, point-of-views and positions - all these do lack a common ground.
The components can not act as common ground as they do have too strong interaction which the system they are part of.
The listening rooms can't either.
The personal biases - of course not as unknown to teh others except for hollow audio phrases.
If we could agree on 2-3 handful of current production LPs with clear specified groove-angle compliant VTA settings - then we would have a common ground.
Harry Pearson did part of that when he established his favourite picks and used them for almost 4 decades to put his listening biases - and results ! - on a common ground.
It was a great help and it did put the audiophile review on kind of a common basis.
I followed his reviews for 12 years and then finally visited him on May 1st, 1988 in Sea Cliff.
During that 4 hour listening session I learned his biases and room and his personal preferences much better than in dozens of reviews I read in the years before.
Now I had a picture.
Everything before was a vague idea - now, and only now I had a clear picture.
But the records did lead the way.
If we could agree on a package of 20 records which are available for standard price to all audiophiles - that would be a small step for each, but a big step for the audiophile community in terms of a common ground and better understanding each other.
And of course - there can never be a "perfect" or "best" component.
Why ?
Because each and every component - foremost the tonearm ! - can only be seen in interaction with its mated partners.
As we haven't standards for output-/input impedance, sensitivity, cantilever compliance, groove-angle and gain - we are dealing with a system of countless parameters depending on the other.
Dreadful situation.
Unthinkable in Pro-Audio.
In any case - I guess the common ground is worth some discussion.
Let me strongly encourage you and others to work out such a package and try to establish it.
It will be helpful to all.
Being 10, 20 or 30 records - it will be enough to cover all aspects of recorded music and we have enough high quality recordings around (thanks to the great wave of re-issues from golden days past) to have open choice.
I hope some fellow analog-Audiogoners do try to bring this package on state and established.
I won't participate.
Did you notice that I didn't mention the particular tonearm I'm in love with in this whole post............
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel, as for decent (below $1000) priced tonearms, I would heartly recommend the bigger Jelcos as well as the venerable (dynamically balanced and most versatile..) old Micro Seiki MA-505 (many versions on the market - try to go for the "x" or "s" - both are silver wired).
All these do change hands for between $400 and $700 and can teach many much higher priced tonearms a thing or two.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel, the proposal with the "common ground" - establishing by a package of records agreed upon - is just a suggestion to a better understanding and maybe a kind of test ground for all.
It is neither to further support my already big enough by all standards ego nor my in the very end futile attempt and quest for perfection.
It is just a plain idea for a common ground - giving each and everyone a firm point to set the lever.
Nothing else.
As for the questions I no longer have ...
I do not ask here and I do not ask Audiophiles.
When questions arose which I can't answer myself in decent time and with my - not universal - knowledge, I turn to a few good engineers and scientist at 3 local scientific institutes - none of them is related with audio in any respect - and get facts and results which are backed by graduated and studied men who are all in research and development.
No opinions, no listening experiences - just scientific results from empirical tests.
I am certainly not too old to learn.
Still learning every day - but not in audio.
Question do come up from time to time, but they are getting fewer and fewer the past years.
Once you are no longer occupied by all too many questions you can use the knowledge and form systems which really reflect the gained knowledge.
One strange thing to watch is, that given this universal source of information - the net - I have noticed that a lot of fairly common analog knowledge from the 1980ies and early 1990ies is no longer common knowledge today.
Lost and forgotten for/and by the majority of todays audiophile community.
You too may have noticed that I have never given any comment about the sound of your system - but you accused me to do so?
All I did say that if you (not personally but universally spoken - thus including myself) do not hear a difference doesn't mean it isn't there.
It implies that the component under review may either be ahead of the rest of the system or that the overall resolution isn't good enough to show its virtues.
Nothing else.
I would never turn to a purple language about others, - something I was confronted with by some posters here the past days.
I neither do need a speakers corner like Hyde Park nor do I have any "truth" (which according to some oldskool philosophers is nothing else but a yet undiscovered lie....) to give - at least not to Audiophiles.
The fact that I did kind of defend an old design of a truely great mind constantly against others and (- in my highly subjective and blinded eyes and deaf ears -) unfair downrate doesn't imply that I am preaching a truth.
You may not like my way nor the fact that I am not always polite and forgiving in my comments.
Thats no problem - just ignore me.
There is enough free space left and right my shoulders.
Virtual and in real life.
I get so much attention in my everyday real life that I can certainly handle that.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear perrew, yes, both- the big Jensen as well as the better Lundahls - do outperform the XF-1 in terms of resolution, openess, transients, low level detail and soundstage dimensions to name but a few.
The Cotter is the peer of teh XF-1.
Most important if you do test any old transformer is to make sure the contact are all cleaned and I would always suggest replacing the standard brass RCA plugs with WBT Ag or Eichmann Ag. |
Hi Axel, do you think you would have judged the proposal of a common ground based on a selction of records agreed upon in the very same way you did if it had come from anybody else but me ?
This is of course just a hypothetical question to further illustrate the impression, that whatever I come up with will be judged and valued by some here as coming straight from the source of all evil with every possible bad intend imagineable in mind.
Tell me I am wrong....?
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Perrew, I do use an all tube design fully balanced differential phono stage with high gain.
Its my design - not a market product.
Syntax, Heradot, 7 other friends of mine and me we have had all very good experiences with the Lamm LP2 (stock and modified), Klyne, Cotter Phono, Tom Evans and a Kaneda design in various set-ups.
The virtues of the FR-7x/FR-60 steel tonearm combination were apparent in all these set-ups - different, but always clearly audible.
Among these I would favourite the LP2 but with several important modifications (the very first step being replacing the standard tubes with WE 417a - and putting a 1950ies black plate RCA rectifier into the LP2).
Hope this info is of any worth.
Cheers,
D. |
A. - no, I meant geometry as a way to describe 2 and 3-dimensional matters.
To what particular name you want to associate it is up to you and the history books.
Geometry is a principle of nature.
NOT a principle of man.
Man just try to file it, name it and to credit it to man ........ as you just showed.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Nil, I am sure that Raul will be glad to explain the technical background in all detail.
Especially the differences between dynamic behaviour and static.
He is deep in the process of designing a pivot tonearm himself.
Cheers,
D. |
Ooops - Axel was fast.....
But so far he did only roughly describe the set-up differences, so there is still "something" from the physical side to add.........
Older tonearms did use a thick coating of extreme low viscosity grease to dampen any spring vibrations in spring loaded VTF.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Axel, dear Pär, - as for the Schick-site and the FR-inside-photos shown there......
Did you notice that there is hardly any grease around the VTF-spring? That isn't but 1/8 of should be there - and was there when new.
In picture 3 counting from above you can see the inner opening of the rear of the FR-tonearm pipe.
Do you notice that there is another pipe inside the outer (as original described by I. Ikeda) armwand?
This is usually called inside tapered......... can it be, that this is the reason why I still can't hear this internal ringing and the distortions described by the mexican authority on FR-tonearm ?
Well - I have so far only opened up, serviced, re-wired and put together into flawless action again about a dozen FR-60 tonearms - so I am not that much into the inner design of these specific tonearms as others.
But as this is now brought up by someone who is not - like me - half-deafed by a hearing which desperately longs for distortion, I feel free to guide some of your attention to this point.
This is done to re-establish the high regard a genuine designer like I. Ikeda deserves.
He has addressed issues other think they have discovered 20 years ahead of them.
However - I admit, that there are cartridges around which indeed do tease the ears with a sonic presentation which is anything but smooth, mellow or distortion free.
But in that case I would always look to geometry first -for good reason.....
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Axel, of course - you need the counterweight to balance the tonearm.
Now we have the state of balanced.
Dynamically balanced means ............. no, I think this belongs to someone else to clarify.
My knowledge is too limited - we have other experts on theoretical physical details in tonearm design.
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Axel, I was only refering to the pictures to illustrate a point which is floating around in this thread since a long time.
Something which is here - put on teh web by a source which is VERY different from me - shown for all to see that some less than bright remarks about the construction of the tonearm-designs I. Ikeda made in the late 1970ies are plain wrong and without any support by reality.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel, Pär, - well Pär is on the right track.
The counterweight do act in both modes to balance the tonearm.
In the static mode it additionally determines the VTF.
BUT - and this is the one big point - when the counterweight determines the VTF the tonearm itself is no longer balanced......
Pär's idea with the high school force vectors is leading the way.
The rest is to be added by and when our friend and final authority has finished his breakfast.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel,...... sorry, but you are not entirely correct here.
Do not mix static balanced with dynamic balanced.
Even with the spring VTF applied (no matter if 0.75 mN or 5 grams...) the tonearm is still dynamically balanced on this and any other planet with decent gravity.
Everything here is about the dynamic behaviour in movement - looking just at the static mode its looks as if tehre is no difference......... but there is a big one once the spring-mass-system of the cantilever/tonearm gets into action.......
As I do not want to fall back in my prior dogmatic behaviour - which was critizsed for good reason and which has stepped on so many less egomanic toes - I gladly leave the stage for others to shine a light here.
Halcro - am I doing better....?.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel, its not a lengthly scientific discourse at all.
Its very easy and fast to describe in 3-5 sentences.
As for the bearing-in-horizontal-line-with-stylus-thing......
When in horizontal line?
By correct applied and groove-compliant VTA.......
Or in static state with armpipe horizontal.....
Or with cantilever in a certain angle while tracking......
Most 12" tonearms do indeed have their bearing in line with surface level when the VTA is groove-compliant and the cartridge isn't with very little or very large outer dimensions.
Another nice episode of the endless struggle theory vs practice......
Funny isn't it?
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Mapam, you are absolutely right. This is the one point that I simply don't understand.
Why do so many audiophiles,- who talk in length about the sometimes subtle differences in cartridges or super expensive cables or preamplifiers - say that its o.k. if the alignment seems fine but its not necessary to adjust for the fraction of a mm.
The polished area of a modern day stylus is 1 x 6 µm ....... that is 1/1000 mm x 6/1000 mm.
You do not get the right picture if you do not work precisely.
A mm off and you are no longer in the street, in fact you are no longer in the same part of the city........
The point is not that the dynamically balanced tonearm has small advantages with warped records - the advantages are fairly large.
Furthermore, each and every records surface and groove-walls aren't perfect flat.
During the run of a record groove the tonearm/cartridge combination does in fact perform a constant hill and valley parcours - hundreds of small up and downs.
Each up and down does alter the tracking force - just a bit of course, but then we are talking subtle changes ONLY in all of analog high-end.
That is why a dynamically balanced tonearm sounds "quiter" (for some ears with a less dynamic set-up it may sound "less live-like") and more relaxed than a static balanced tonearm whose cartridge does track with constant changes in its VTF.
This is not just my opinion, but everybody will agree if he makes a small drawing of the - thank you Perrew! - force vectors involved.
We are fooling ourselves if we do not work absolutely precise and if we do not apply those technical features which are easily available.
Precision is not easy and may consumpt some time and effort.
But it is the heart of the game and the door to true high-end sound.
The one and only door - too often missed by too many set-ups.
"God lives in the detail....... "(M.v.d. Rohe, an architect)
Settle for less and you waste a large portion of your investment.
Its the same as running your high performance car with 20 year old tires well past any profile......
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel, well - this is one specific area where my knowledge is far deeper than in tonearm geometry.
Arminus - only his roman name survived (Herrman is a german name given to him in the hey-days of german nationalism romantics during the 19th century when he was "discovered" as the first hero of a yet to become Germany ...) was raised, trained and educated in Rome ( sended their as a hostage of noble cheruscian blood being one of the sons of a cheruscian chieftain - back then there were no kings) and in the Legion and held the status of a noble roman knight by the year 9 A.D. (the most possible for a non-roman born citizen of the roman empire at that time).
He had a formidable career in the roman legion and was kind of a war-hero in Rome.
In late autumn he lured 3 roman legions - the 17th, 18th and 19th all in full war status and counting more than 18 000 - into a military trap and crushed them.
Most likely not in the Teutoburger Wald, but close to Kalkriese (Osnabrück - where the protestant party signed the "westphalian peace" which ended the 30-year-war from 1618 to 1648 ....... the roman-chatholic party signed in Münster..... after 30 years they still weren't even able to afgree on one place and to sit at one table...)
All this took place when he was still a roman knight and leading some 600-800 horsemen as auxiliary troops of the romans.
For the romans he was a traitor.
For his countrymen he was THE hero.
He hated Rome all his life - even if spending most of his life as a roman.
He defeated 1/8th of the complete Roman military machine and slaughtered all but a few dozens - it was the worst defeat Rome suffered in 400 years and it ended all serious Roman efforts to occupy territories east of Rhine and North of the Main forever.
In recent historic research this single event is more and more regarded as one of the key turning points in roman history.
The 17th, 18th and 19th legion were never recruited again and the 3 eagles got lost for some 25 years.
But eventually all 3 eagles got back to Rome.
The Roman credited their roots to the fugitives of ancient Troja - not Latium.
Latium was the geographic area.
Given the cool and controlled will, the excellent technical engineering and the strict dicipline and clear structures in the roman empire and early society, we can today only speculate about the origins of the romans.
Even the ancient Greek came into europe from the plains of central asia - the Dorer.
Most of ancient southern europe's people were immigrants.
In the north it were the celts and the teutonic/germanic tribes to name but a few.
And you thought you will never again be confronted with history after high school.......
You know Axel - I like to get to the core of things and like to be precise.
The question is..... what does this tell us about the high prices of todays tonearms......
Cheers,
D. |
Dear Henry, can't do that right now - if I did I would make a strong and detailed remark about the phrase "universal tonearm" and would show that this is a contradiction in terms.
Just out of curiosity - while I am in my TT project I will demonstrate my concept about a pivot tonearm too.
Kind of side-show.
Maybe we will see the mexican born tonearm first, but mine will be published shortly after.
It won't take me years, - can't, since I always claimed it is fairly simple and easy.
I will address those points all the "others" haven't even thought about before.
That tonearm will not work with ALL cartridges, but it will work with the 20-30 best.
It will not work and can't be mounted on all TT's - but it will work and can be mounted on the best.
And it will show that all my former remarks about the topic were made for good reason.
The very best is never universal.
A tonearm - even with adjustable moving mass and interchangeable armwands - can never suit all cartridges.
The tonearm is always part of a spring-mass-system were it forms only one part of that system.
Is there a universal cartridge?
Is there a universal car?
Is there a universal plane?
Trying to make a tonearm universal or claim it is shows big enthusiastic pride about a product/component, but shows a basic lack of..........
We'll see.
Halcro ..... you wanted me to give an acid test.
We'll have it.
Good sports.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Pär, Raul's will be a market product.
Mine will only be available for a few selected audiophiles - but I will nevertheless publish the tonearm.
As I said - kind of the long requested "acid test" (... and I will proof, that it will withstand even aqua regia ).
The big problem is - this is one thing I guess Raul and I agree upon - that you can't put an "all-assault"-top flight component to the market today with a price tag lower than the competition.
If a new Top-high-end tonearm is introduced and his price tag is half of the big Continuum, new DaVinci, Air Tangent (still around ?) etc. - no one will take it seriously.
In other words: you introduce the "best universal tonearm" ( NOT my words...) to the market and put a retail price tag on it of US$3890,-.
There are hundreds of potential buyers on this planet who won't take it seriously and will not even consider buying it to test.
No matter how fancy the cosmetics - no matter if its coming in a cherished antique finish wooden presentation box with gold plated dressings.
You put a price tag of US$20 000,- on the very same tonearm and you will sell 3 dozens to the far east market (and to Russia...) in the first 3 weeks.
Why ?
Because with this price tag the tonearm does transport a huge image, status and "face" to its buyer.
Strange new (not really...) world....
Cheers,
D.
P.S.: don't blame me now if R's tonearm comes with a very serious price tag...... its the market and the human nature who are to blame. |
And this is all for FREE !!!
Maybe that is the message ......... |
Dear Perrew, really look forward to.
I am sure we'll have a real great audio and cultured day!
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel, we certainly do not need another tonearm.
Same with amplifiers, TTs, cartridges, Flat screen TVs, cars, airplanes, ships etc.
Its a matter of passion and to see if the current frontiers are the last.
Its about the entire search for (sonic...) beauty in mankind's world.
As for the different toenarm bearing-concepts and different concepts regarding balance.
Yes, - many ways may lead to Rome - but there is only one Via Appia and only one straight road leading direct to the Forum Romanum.......
The other roads lead to the center of Rome too - but the city-center is/was pretty large...... I want to go straight up to the first step of the capitol stairs and park my 4-horse-chariot there (I do not want to walk - its a fairly long road...) ..... SPQR.
And it will be most entertaining for me to boldly go where no man has gone before...... (...I really miss Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his discussions with Q.....).
Back from outer space to ancient Rome.
The old latin term "optimus" does not name a heterogenous group.
There is only one.
Sorry about that - its not my fault nor did I invent it.
Although I might very well again get some critics to bringing this up again.
Don't take it all too serious...
In humble remote.....
D. |
Hi Axel, every time I was in Britain people said to me: you are not german - you are french.
Every time I was in the US people said: you are not german - you're a typical englishman.
Most propably this doesn't make me a typical german - or especially that ??
I am of Cheruskan and Ubian blood and roots and maybe that tells the story about my romantic westphalian mind and the quests for absolute which I can not resist.
But - Syntax said it better and I believe if we close this thread with his last post we can call it round and fullfilled.
Excellent.
Cheers,
D. |
Hi Axel, without getting into the subject again: the Allemannen were located in southern part of what is tpday Germany and around Lake Constance - and they still are. The other tribes in the northern part were the Sueben, Bruteker, Chatten, Angeln, Saxons, Friesen etc. to name but a few.
The french word for Germany has different roots and dates from medieval times.
Anyway - a nice wekend to all....
The history lesson is over - I promise.
Cheers,
D. |
