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?


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.

Neon, Based on the post by J Carr in which he discussed various cantilever materials and also expressed the opinion that in retipping or restoring a cartridge, one might be best off sticking to the original chosen cantilever material, on the premise that the cartridge was designed and voiced with that material, I would choose to stick with aluminum if replacing the cantilever on an MC2000.  On the same grounds, better yet would be to re-tip the original aluminum cantilever.  Now I do respect Raul's opinions, and he did say that he likes the boron cantilever on his MC2000, or what once was his MC2000.  But we also know what Raul and Mijo think about the phrase "I like it" when other people use it.