Discuss The Viv Lab Rigid Arm

I am trying to do my due diligence about this arm. I am just having a hard time getting my head around this idea of zero overhang and no offset. Does this arm really work the way it is reported to do?


Enjoyment of Music is enjoyment of Sound made by Humans.

Sound made by Humans is present as a form of entertainment, the sole purpose being to function as a stimulus for the bodies auditory perception and the ability to be able to hear sound, is able to create a certain type of stimulus within an individual.

It can be safely said, that not all sound produced for entertainment purposes arouses equal stimulus in all individuals.

It can be safely said, that when a sound that is produced for the purposes of entertainment is discovered by an individual and proves to be to their taste and preferences, the enjoyment being experienced is most likely to be of a equal measure to what others are experiencing in relation to their chosen and preferred sound being produced.  

It does not matter what is attached to the Stimulus, be it distortion or non-distortion, a Mother listening to a child play a instrument after a short period of learning, will convince herself the music is wonderful. When listening to sound for the purpose of entertainment, there is no right or wrong, the music is either and attraction or not.

What ever music type, that has created attraction and proved to be entertaining and is wanted to be maintained, is all that matters.

To try and attach more to it is unnecessary, to suggest a particular method is needed to experience the music is not really going to win too much favour.

To suggest a Tool used to replay recorded music can only offer the best form of entertainment, if it is produced to function within a certain parameter is silliness.

To suggest that a Tool used that is not functioning to within a certain parameters, is not able to be entertaining and should be discarded and not maintained is a crazy notion.

Most Tools designed are very successful, and the role of the Tool is proven adequately fit for purpose. Recorded Music is successfully replayed as the result.

Spend as much time as one wants arguing the toss with others about decisions made. It wont change anything, especially when the made decision has proved to put an emphasis on the quality of entertainment being created, being for the better.

Neon, as I mentioned to you earlier, you need not worry about effective mass with either the DV505 or the Viv, but it seems you do enjoy the fretting. I run my MC2000 in my Triplanar with no problems at all . Of course, that judgement is made by my ear; I haven’t measured the resonant frequency. In my opinion, the commonly used equation for calculating resonant frequency based on cartridge compliance and tonearm effective mass can only get you a ballpark figure for Fr. This is because none of us know the actual effective mass of our tonearms, exactly, and we do not know the compliance of one particular sample of a cartridge. I am convinced that manufacturing tolerances are such that the rigid compliance number usually supplied is only that of an average sample. Furthermore, once a cartridge has aged, whether in use or sitting on a shelf, it is quite likely that the compliance has changed from day one of its life. The Triplanar is said to have an effective mass of about 11 g. That number is a little more reliable than most, because the Triplanar has a non-detachable headshell. Once you mix and match tonearms with headshells, it is very easy to lose track of the correct tonearm effective mass. Your Dyna vector DV505 has a remarkably low effective mass in the vertical plane which is well suited to the MC2000. I know you are worried about effective mass in the horizontal plane. You shouldn’t be. I also ran the MC 2000 in my DV505 for several months. The performance was equally good to that of the Triplanar. In fact, the very low bass response might have been more articulate in the DV 505.

@lewm It is true I look at things from varying angles, working to understand the variables and a proper implementation. With the MC2000 a bit more so, as there are getting to be less and less of them, and because I unfortunately am responsible for one less stock one. But I will say @rauliruegas experience regarding using a boron cantilever on a damaged MC2000 is a viable option. I will also say I feel the same about you regarding the DV505, and the use of the light Denon headshell and the smaller Dynavector counterweight makes me far more comfortable running the MC2000 on a DV505. I am content with the pairing. Wish I did have a cue device and the associated cue platform, would have protected against the event that did in that first MC2000. 

I don't maintain a large collection of analog gear, I am content with my 6 cartridges, and three arms. The Dynavector allows me to run 3 casual cartridges, the boron MC2000/MC3000 II/MC5000 and that is enough for casual vinyl spinning for a long time. Truth is digital sounds really nice here and I can easily use it for casual listening also. 

Hopefully the final tidbits allows me to fine tune the set up of the BMC phono stage, which I do see as quite attainable. With that I am set with my analog rigs and am content. I feel fortunate to have nice examples of the T2000 and T5000 SUT devices, and am happily surprised how well the Esoteric phono stage functions. 


I am in a good place. 


The issue of zeniyh is almost bs because we all know that if exist something imperfect in the whole anolog subject is exactly ANALOG and what surrounded it.

How can you say the above and then go on about TAE of the rigid float arm???  As Lew pointed out the tolerance specification from Orbray and Fgyger is ±5° and just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it is not a huge problem.


Lew asked you if you paid attention to Zenith and you assured him you set the SRA with the nicest tools on the planet without answering his question about the zenith accuracy of your carts.   You could send them to @wallytools and have JR take a look at it for you.


There seems there’s much for me to learn with cartridge behavior regarding the hierarchy of TAE: zenith, over/under-hang geometry and anti-skate - including potentials with different profile styli.

Or, instead of concentrating on stylus tracking angle error, maybe a little thought into motor stability theory is in order?

In my way of thinking, there’s something seriously going on with lateral movement or stability that needs to be addressed.

Validity lies in the sonic experience which no doubt is extremely positive by every firsthand account.

As typically understood, correlation of numerical data does not always explain what sounds good.