ZYX Universe - Unipivot or Dual Gimbal arm

FWIW, I mounted all the cartridges on Cello's Graham 2.2 last December when he compared the Airy 2, Airy 3 and UNIverse. I didn't experiment with different degrees of mounting screw tightness, though I did try to torque the mounting screws the same (by feel) for each cartridge.

It's possible I trusted too much to the Graham mounting jig, which I've since realized compromises accuracy for convenience. If I mount any cartridges on Cello's 2.2 again I'll use my protractor. It would be interesting to see and hear how much difference that makes.

Frank was there on a later occasion, when we used two UNIverses to compare the Schroeder Ref, DPS, Model Two, TriPlanar VII and Graham 2.2. Frank mounted cartridges on his arms while I watched. I mounted cartridges on the TriPlanar while he watched. (I'm pretty sure I learned more than he did!) We made Cello mount cartridges on his Graham.

My take on the Reference vs. the TriPlanar VII (with a UNIverse) differs from Cello's. I've posted my detailed impressions before and a search will turn them up. In summary, the TriPlanar came remarkably close to the Ref in overall performance. The differences are much more a matter of taste than a matter of better or worse. Cello's tastes lean distinctly toward the warm and timbral. The Ref does that better. My tastes lean toward the dynamic and present. The TriPlanar does that better.

However, I do agree with Cello about the Graham. While we may have been able to improve its performance to some degree, the gap between it and all the other arms was so large that I doubt any amount of adjusting could bridge it. With all due respect to Mr. Graham, in Cello's system with all the cartridges we've tried, the 2.2 has substantially underperformed all the other arms mentioned above. Its sound was murky, slow, undynamic and distant by comparison. Whether this is due to its unipivot design, multiple armwire breaks, choice of materials and design or some combination thereof I don't know. But its deficiencies were neither small nor subtle.

"These are not characteristics that I would ascribe to the Graham 2.2. Was your arm/cartridge properly set up?"

It was set up as well as we know how of course.

Last December we spent three days fine-tuning the blue goop, with the help of SirSpeedy's excellent advice. Four listeners confirmed the optimal level for each cartridge.

We adjusted azimuth by visually eyeballing each stylus to make sure it was vertical. Cello and I are co-owners of a Wally Analog Shop, which allows electronic measurement of azimuth, but IME I get nearly as close visually as I can with the Wally.

We roughed in VTF using a .01g digital scale and VTA by starting the cartridge level (which ZYX's prefer). We fine-tuned from there by listening. My partner Paul took the lead there, since he's more sensitive to VTA/SRA than anyone else we know.

We followed the same procedures with every other arm. IOW, we took as much care setting up the Graham as we took with the Schroeders or the TriPlanar. Yet the sonic characteristics of Cello's Graham have been evident on all four occasions that I've visited.

Perhaps there's something about setting up a 2.2 that neither Cello, Chris Brady, Frank Schroeder nor I understand. But none of us has been able to get it to perform at the level of even a Schroeder Model Two, never mind any of the higher priced competitors.

CB recently sent Cello and me a new drive belt. It's an experimental one that provides better platter-motor coupling than the old belt and thus superior resistance to stylus drag.

On my 320/TriPlanar/UNIverse the new belt is a 100% success. I had to increase VTF slightly to allow the stylus to track the more forcefully driven grooves. I had to adjust VTA slightly to compensate for the slightly higher downforce. Once I learned those adjustments the increase in dynamics and bass response was unalloyed by any downside.

On Cello's 340/Graham 2.2/UNIverse the new belt has resulted in some excessive brightness that he's been unable to tune away. Perhaps he hasn't spent enough time fine tuning VTF and VTA. Perhaps he needs another drop of blue goop. Or perhaps the Graham just can't handle the extra energy.

Cmk,

I've also heard this arm with a Shelter 901 and a Koetsu RSP. This 2.2 sounded much as I described with them too. I would not draw conclusions about an arm based on hearing just one cartridge or brand of cartridges.

You're right that ZYX's require exacting setup of course. The six models we've had in our system all needed very careful adjustment to perform their best.

SirSpeedy,
Thank you for the gracious apology. I appreciate it.

I hadn't responded because I've learned that, when I've got nothing good to say it's always best not to say it.

Please consider Cello's suggestion. Patience is a hard climb, but impatience causes harder falls.

Regards,
Doug

P.S. You may be entirely correct about the setup of that Graham of course. I am only comfortable describing what I've actually done or heard, and that's what I posted.

If you or anyone can help Cello's 2.2 become as musical as a Schroeder, I expect he'd be grateful. I know his bank account would be.

Thom,
I'm following your azimuth posts with interest, though I won't have much time to experiment or post for the next few weeks. We have (non-music listening) house guests and I'm interviewing for jobs.

One correction: Wally's azimuth measurement does not equalize output levels between channels. That method would indeed be fraught with errors. Wally's method minimizes crosstalk.

I presume minimal crosstalk occurs when the coils are positioned to move symmetrically within the magnetic field. Depending on the accuracy of the cartridge's construction, this position may or may not align the contact edges of the stylus precisely with the groovewalls. If the cartridge is not perfectly built (and I assume that none is truly perfect) then "perfect" azimuth adjustment is in fact unattainable.

FWIW, adjustments of < 1 degree do indeed produce measurable changes in crosstalk. I too have noticed what you call "null" zones, where adjustments have little effect or even reverse effects.

The main thing we hear when azimuth is just right is the tightest L/R imaging available from that particular cartridge, a reduction in image "bloat".

Best regards,
Doug

Wally's method does not assume perfect channel balance, in the cartridge or any other component. He specifically designed to avoid that assumption.

He starts by measuring output on each channel. Any imbalance is allowed for in the calculations that follow.