I recently unpacked my turntable from a couple of years of storage. It still sounds very good. Several times during playback of the first few albums I literally jumped from my chair to see which track was playing as it sounded so great. After a while I realized the "great" sound was always at one of the "null" points. They seem to occur at the approximately the proper place (about 125mm from spindle) and near the lead out groove. Questions: Is this common? I have improved the resolution of my system since the table's been in storage but I don't remember hearing this before. All others geometric sources of alignment error not defined by the null points (VTA, azimuth etc.) are essentially constant through out the arc correct? If so they should cancel out. I assume the remedy is a linear tracking arm but I am surprised at how obviously better the sound is at these two points. Table - AR ES-1, Arm - Sumiko MMT, Cart. - Benz Glider, Pre - Audible Illusions, Speakers - Innersound electrostatic hybrid Do linear arms really sound as good across the whole record as I hear at only the nulls with my set-up?
May I jump in here to give an honour mention to the excellent and easy to use Graham cartridge alignment device that always is spot on with any cartridge I mounted, doubled checked carefuly with two points protractors. This clever device is a pleasure to use because you know alignment is correct BEFORE the armwand is mounted on the arm. I wish that all tonearm designer include this kind of device with their tonearm. It is safer for our valuable cartridges.
I read the thread about Mint protractor and noticed that some Graham alignment gauge users find differences in alignment. In my experience there are differences from one to another, some have some "play" in the foldable plastic device , other not. I had to return 3 to have a good one with no "play", and here I have no error anymore. I don't say it is the ideal and absolutely perfect way to cartridge alignment but a smart and SAFE way and certainly an idea to perfect for the future tonearm designers.
Dear Jloveys, agreed. Bob Graham is one of the - very few... - who has done literally all his homework. His tonearms are - in the very sense of the word - "complete". With his clever pre-set-up alignment he provides a tool which will enable even the most inexperienced audiophile to get at least 90% of the posible optimum from his tonearm/cartridge-combination. All you need it that and the 100% precise spindle-bearing-mounting distance (he supplys a very nive tool for that too....) - then follow the manufacturers recommendations in terms of VTF of the given cartridge (during break-in close to the maximum recommended VTF...) and that will ensure that inner goove distortion and big sonic advantage at zero-error points won't haunt you at all.
High-end can be easy......... clever applied and precisely followed physics do help a lot.
Dear Axel: Yesterday an audio friend call me to meet one of his friends ( new person for me ) at this friend place.
Well, he has a SME-30 wth the V and Windfeld cartridge with around 250 hours and he loaded at 180 Ohms ( no SUT ). We were hearing dfferent recordings and can't hear any inner groove distortion. He was running the V in its original dinamically way and I ask to run in static way and the performance improve a little, he was satisfied.
Then, we take that Windfeld and come to my place where we try it ( loaded at 100 Ohms with no SUT ) in four different tonearms ( IV, Lustre, AT 1503 and our own design . ) where in no one show the inner distortion.
Btw, the Windfeld performs better in any of the other tonearms ( like was my experiences with LOMC Ortofon cartridges. ), in the V/IV its performance is good but not at the same level than in the other tonearms ( We try with a Nagaoka magnesium headshell and with an aluminum one, the cartridge " prefers " the aluminum one. ).
This Ortofon cartridge is very good and in some ways similar to other Ortofon MC cartridges specially the MC 7500, I like it.
Phew, thanks for all the various inputs. Never expected THAT much feedback.. To clear up some items and also add some more thoughts. 1) I use a 30dB SUT (XF-1 type M, 1:31.6 xfactor) which is pretty much on the high side for a 0.3 mV cart as is the PW.
2) So far PRIMARY loading gave the best result, it is VERY much different to SECONDARY loading, which I have also tried. I don't want to go into the detail now, but believe it or not 13 ohms! seems just about a perfect impedance match.
3) With no SUT the loading is anywhere from 500ohm to 47kohm and VERY phono-pre dependent
4) Back to inner groove distortion:
a) The PW allows azimuth alignment 1-3 degree, due to 3 point support. This I long checked with a mirror (as mentioned) it looks fine.
b) the SME's (all of them) come with a SME type overhang adjustment tool --- it appears VERY sensitive and (at least to SME) as accurate, or more, then most any other method.
c) the head-shell is fixed and has a 22 deg. off-set angle (no slotted screw holes) so all seems fine, or?
d) I wish I could have had some better experience with Ortofon. The PW came about due to a Jubilee exchange, a side-wall of the Jubilee splitting open AND a badly misaligned cantilever. The PW seems to be OK regards the housing (new design) BUT has an issue by VERY 'low riding' AND the new 3 point housing needing exceptionaly much higher arm adjustment (the two rear point are to high for the one in front). This makes for a VERY limited VTA adjustment range, with the rear body (tail-end) easily touching the vinyl, when it has a lip (start grooves) or with slightly warped vinyl.
e) Now, using a different cart, Lyra Dorian on 9c Project arm with RPM9 AND LP12 alignment, Baerwald paper alignment tools, etc. ALSO gave me inner groove distortion! --- also with a different phono-pre (PS Audio GCPH).
f) this may help to explain my mentioning Herr Albert Einstein's bit on doing the same thing over and over -- expecting different results :-)
g) As the cart goes it appears to be just riding too low -- when my 3 times repared Jubilee came back from Ortofon, it also sported a higher ride-hight than originaly supplied. Maybe my PW could do with some of that too? But I am sick an tired of Ortofon to be honest.
h) having also tried a Dynavector DV 20X-L, higher compliance than PW and less heavy, I could still make out some but less distortion. Did not fiddle too much with it as it only was a quick test, and this cart is no where near as good/neutral/resolved/etc. etc. as the PW
Maybe it's just all my vinyl...? New Alison Krauss & Union Station "so long so wrong" has ALSO distortion e.g. side two last band --- much too sibilant. So there you go...
Hey, one more thing re: Dertonarm --"100% precise spindle-bearing-mounting distance"-- Just PLEASE bear in mind that this is hard FIXED with ALL SME arms. Overhang is adjusted by moving the bearing-post back and forth, yes?
Two more items: I did not respond correctly to the spindle / pivot item. The SME has a hard fixed cart-mounting-holes to arm-pivot distance. Of course the SPINDLE (main baering) to arm-pivot distance is the VERY thing that IS variable with the SMEs,-- contrary to most other arms, that have a fixed pivot spindle distance once the whole for the arm-post is drilled.
One more interesting and MOST readable post to the subject happens to be found under: Analog / Mounting of a tonearm. It, as it happens, echos some of my 'intuitions' for lack of a better word.
Dear Axelwahl, the TT's spindle to the tonearms pivot bearing point is NEVER variable in a pivot tonearm. It is the ONE single FIXED foundation of a given tonearms geometry. The distance of the tonearms pivot point to the center of the LP (= spindle of TT's bearing ) is NOT variable. The SME sliding mount is not meant to "variate" the mounting distnace nor to compensate for the fixed cartridge mounting holes. The SME V has a fixed mounting distance of 215.35 mm (SME does give this value in such detail because it is paramount for the whole tonearm geometry....). Not taking this point as serious as it is means to skip the whole geometry alltogether and results in poor sonic performance and high distortion.
Please see here: http://www.sme.ltd.uk/content/Series-V-1330.shtml
Woopsy, I might get something VERY wrong here. Now PLEASE how can it be as you say... if I move the tone-arm post (containing the pivot bearing) back or forth -- it should be STILL the same distance to the centre bearing / spindle?? What is truely fixed (SME) is the distance from the mounting holes to the pivot bearing. Since there is no standart from mounting holes to stylus tip (usually ~ 9mm) the arm post in the SME design can slide back and forth to adjust for correct overhang. This means the arm-post (containing the pivoy bearing, yes?) will change its distance to the record main-bearing centre pin, its unavoidable else there'd be NO overhang adjustment possible. The only way to adjust overhang with a FIXED pivot to centre pin distance is to have oblong head-shell holes and NO SME head-shell has, hence the arm-post slide system. Maybe we are not talking about the same measuremen(s)? Axel
Dear Axel, we do talk about the same thing. However - there is a huge missinterpretation by several SME V owners.
On the whole sliding distance of the SME mount - some 25 - 40 mm - there is ONLY ONE POINT where the spindle - pivot bearing distance (=mounting distance) is exactly the 215.35 mm SME does specify. The distance is always the same on a circle around a given fixed point (here: the spindle). The SME slide does not feature a circle segment, but a linear one. I guess the point is clear now - isn't it?? The SME-mount was introduced in the 1950ies to allow precise alignment of the mounting distance even when the drilling of the wooden armboard was inprecise. The fact that the SME V does feature fixed cartridge mounting holes have been critiszed from the day of its introduction. It is simply a big mistake in its design. If the horizontal distance mounting holes to stylus on all cartridges would be the same (as it should, but is not...) , then SME would be right. But in real world, the SME does not allow adjustment of overhang........ with a given cartridge you either get it right by simple luck - or you doesn't. You can not adjust it. Unfortunately cartridge designers do not stricly design there cartridges with a standardized distance mounting holes to stylus.
Again - yes, there is no overhang adjustment possible with the SME V...... Sorry - SME's fault..... I know a few SME V owners who do indeed have modified their SME V so that now they do feature oblonged holes to mount the cartridge. They can adjust the overhang now. With a stock SME V you simply CANNOT adjust the overhang. If you try by using the SME slide, your whole geometry goes nowehere. Thus the SME V does limit your selection of useable cartridges quite a bit......
Holy moly, you are dead serious in what you are saying as I can read ---- BUT something does not gel at all.
1) SME adds a overhang template, with a machined bushing for the V! (it goes over the centre pin). Then you put your stylus into a tiny prick-holed template (marked by a cross) and adjust the overhang so that the arm geometry (arm is tapered, yes) aligns visually, from above with the template! There is a lengthy section in the manual just dealing with that and exactly how to do it (and how not to do it). Also the is a special key tool to do the sliding bit (nothing like hand moving here). All that just to get this micron exact point -- with NO gauge to support your idea? Sound pretty far out, now doesn't it?
2) There'd be NO means, other than some funky optical measuring equipment, maybe the latest for a tool-shop, that would be able to set the arm as you suggest.
3) Since there are precision holes (for cap screws) drilled and tapped into the ALU arm-board, they could be just fine and no pivot-post movement mechanism needed, just some oblong holes, right?
4) There seems to be a MAJOR discrepancy here with some other expert Forum members that maintain that the pivot to centre-pin distance is NOT of the ULTIMATE importance as I hear it from you.
5) If it really was, why would SME for the last 50 years maintain a pivot post slide on the "best tone arm in the world" (their words, not mine) It written on the box, believe it or not.
6) So, I guess I hear your argument loud and clear, but SME can't be the one to support it, rightly or wrongly... And I do NOT say: you don't have a point.
I got to digest that bit! Do some geometry to see if your argument is valid, though.
It may just turn out as yet another funky argument, like all the differing anti-skating, and dynamic VTF stuff.
This discussion about the SME V arm and overhang adjustment is interesting and somewhat confusing. I had the same conversation with Yip of MINT LP. I had to supply the arm to spindle distance as specified by SME, the arm pivot distance to the center of the catridge mounting holes as specified by SME and most importantly, the mounting hole to stylus-tip distance as specified my my catridge manufacturer-Air Tight. This last was hard to get, but once I gave it to Yip, he made an arc-type protractor specific to my arm/cartridge combination and sent it to me. I realigned my cartridge which was off by about 2mm from using the SME alignment tools and adjusted the zenith and azimuth. I presume the new alignment is more accurate, because it sounds significantly better and under 10x magnification, the cantilever lines up with the tangent lines on the protractor.
I have found the SME V arm to be very inconvenient to adjust, but it sounds fine and it can be properly aligned. Though I still don't know if this is the source of your "tracking error distortion".
Honestly, - what I have described is not my opinion, but simply the physical fact and the geometry. You do not have to "believe" me or the "arguments" made. Please read the papers published in Audio Engineering Society Jopurnal during the 1950ies to 1990ies about tonearm geometry - these are the standards of tonearm geometry - nothing else. SME hoped that all cartridge designers would agree to a standard in horizontal distance between the mounting holes and teh stylus. If all cartridges would feature the very same distance there, everything would be fine. They did not and still do not. So any tonearm unable to adjust the overhang (with the spindle - bearing pivot distance (=mounting distance) of course a fixed value) has a big problem.
Please make a drawing on a sheet of paper - the visual manifestation will help to illustrate and clarify the point. It is impossible to adjust overhang by moving the whole tonearm !! Overhang is a value that DEPENDS on the geometry of the given tonearm !!! The geometry of ANY pivot tonearm has one foundation: the spindle-bearing distance (= mounting distance). The whole calculation of its geometry roots in this value. If you move the pivot of the bearing away from the specified value as given by the designer, the whole geometry of your tonearm is gone! We are talking plain, 2-dimensional geometry only here - this is nothing that can be discussed in any way. It is fixed since about 2500 years when its foundations were displayed and described in ancient Greece (well, - and before in Egypt....). Its not whether I am right or wrong - it is the physical and geometrical fact. SME simply made a mistake in taking a specific value for granted (the distance between the mounting holes and the stylus being the same in all cartridges).
Dertonarm, I understand your simple and accurate description of tonearm geometry very well. Thanks. It really does make sense, and perhaps SME made this mistake back when their arms were originally disigned. My only point is that once an owner knows the stylus tip to mounting hole distance and gets a specific protractor made for his/her arm/cartridge combination, the SME V arm can be very accurately positioned and the cartridge properly aligned. Surely, this can be attested to by happy SME arm owners.
Howdy Dertonarm, and All I had some time to speak to the old Egyptians (during my sleep last night), so here goes.
1) It is impossible to adjust overhang by moving the whole tonearm !! THIS STATEMENT (ON ITS OWN) IS INCORRET. OVERHANG IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STYLUS AND THE CENTRE PIN WHEN THE TONE ARM IS IN LINE WITH THE CENTRE PIN (most tone arms do not allow physically to move this far, but the stylus' prescribed arc will exactly show it also (look at an LP12 set-up template and you'll see what I say is correct).
2) Overhang is a value that DEPENDS on the geometry of the given tonearm !!! THIS STATEMENT IS CORRECT AS IT STANDS.
3)The geometry of ANY pivot tonearm has one foundation: the spindle-bearing distance (= mounting distance). THIS IS ALSO CORRECT -- IF "GEOMETRY" MEANS "OVERHANG" IN THIS CONTEXT.
4) If you move the pivot of the bearing away from the specified value as given by the designer, the whole geometry of your tonearm is gone! THIS IS ONLY CORRECT IF (AGAIN) "GEOMETRY" MEANS OVERHANG. But since overhang is adjustable with EVERY arm, either by head-shell (oblong holes) or moving the arm-post it is NOT "gone" as you put it.
Here is the deal from the 2500 year old Egyptian. First ask why do you have OVERHANG in the first place, and than also ask WHY do different arm specify DIFFERNT overhangs, and why do different so called 9" arms have not exactly the same distance between mounting hole and pivot, and pivot and centre pin?! BECAUSE IT ONLY MATTER SO... MUCH! All we do with these different measurements, is using the OVERHANG to ensure that the two NULL-POINTS (or zero tangential tracking error) are distributed to the "right" places (two) over the record! Note: This "right" place does not even exist! Every expert has his own idea of what's best, not just Baerwald, Linn, etc. etc. not even the Egyptians would know. Why? Because it e.g. depends how wide you decide to 'spread' the two "Null-Points" i.e. the shorter the overhang the narrower the 'spread' (distance between the two points) since you have made the tone-arm's prescribed arc smaller. MORE overhang conversely gives you a wider spread. So there is some agreement on "more or less" where you want to allow the most and where the least error ---- and that's ALMOST all.
But not all things are quite equal: The pivot to centre pin distance ALSO determines WHERE on the record your particular "null-point spread" would be! No good to have a zero tracking-error where there is NO GROOVE, (or better where there is MOSTLY no groove). So having determined e.g. that it (null-point) is some 2 1/2" from the label (inside), then you figure it is say ~ 1/2 inch after the start groove --- you obtain by geometrical principal the overhang required for a GIVEN pivot to centre pin tone-arm measure. That's why (amongst other things like alignmnet preference)not all overhangs are quoted the same (15, 17, 18 mm, etc.), because the pivot to centre pin distances are not all the same with 9" arms or 10.5" , 12" etc.!
So back to the geometry argument and how 'crewed up' the Egyptian says it gets. Let's look at SME again, OK. The "error" comes in by the arm-post (arm pivot) moving, to obtain a pre-determined overhang (given by SME set-up template). We now ever so slightly change the arc, by e.g. moving the arm post forward with e.g. a cart of shortish stylus mounting hole distance. But HOW MUCH will that be? My current experience tells me within 1mm, of course it depends on the cart. Take a VERY odd one, the Dynavector 17D3 Karat Cartridge and it will get as way-out as it gets, perhaps 2mm short of the more average 9mm distance --- so I'll better not use that, unless I dig the resultung change in alignment.
Back to the +/- 0.5mm stylus mounting hole variation. Now if the distance is more, the 'null point spread' gets a bit wider and visa versa a bit narrower when the distance (stylus / mounting hole) gets less. The question is: How much is "a bit"? That "bit" is equal to the above mentioned flavours of overhang producing Linn, Baerwald and what not, alignments --- take your pick. Go with what sounds best for your system and your ears. I have tried (from one template alone) about four different overhang flavours, each one having it's pros and cons. The difference between them (resulting change of prescribed arc) is not more than a few mm of where these Null-point wind up on the record.
So what's the Egyptian say: Don't worry be happy --- unless you INSIST on a particular geometry (alignment) that is NOT a Linn (then don't by one) or a SME then don't either. Both of these have FIXED head-shell holes / arm-pivot to head-shell to centre pin distances. And both have been going for longer than ANY of the all current offerings also, funny no? Linn sells their own carts and by that they make sure you got it right, SME hope you get the right cart +/- since they know it is NOT THAT critical after all, where you null-point are. 1-2 mm this way or that way will be hard to tell, even with bats-ears I guess. Greetings, Axel
Dear Peterayer, agreed. When you know the stylus tip to mounting hole distance you can get a good geometry with new calculation based on the SME V's mounting distance. Thats where the MINT protactor and its specific individual calculation comes into place.
Dertonarm, one more thing :-) Done my pivot / spindle measurement on the SME-V and it is: 215.35 mm give or take 0.0... something! The adjustments with a PW, Dorian, DV X20-L are minute actually, all changing this distance value by some few 100th of a millimetre, hallo! So it looks like we are making one BIG elephant out of a fly here. So, all's in butter, right? Now, if we still have IGD, then what?! Greetings, Axel
Dear Axelwahl, I will keep it as short as possible. 1) it is possible to adjust teh overhang by moving the whole tonearm. But if you do so, your specified mounting distance is gone unless you move your tonearm on a circle segment always amintaining the very same spindle-bearing distance. This is a simple geometric fact. A sheet of paper and a pair of dividers will nicely illustrate the point. 2) The geometry depends on the mounting distance of the tonearm as the first NON-variable parameter of the basic calculation. If you adjust the overhang (which depends on the spindle-bearing distance founded geometry...) by altering the basic parameter, the overhang you just adjusted to is no longer the overhang you tried to align to..... because you moved the tonearm..... 3) the overhang DEPENDS on the mounting distance - not vice versa.... 4) It is a BIG difference, whether you adjust the overhang with oblonged holes in the headshell (because the mounting distance remains, as you do not move the tonearm.... only the stylus) or by moving the tonearm. To adjust the overhang is a movement RELATIVE to the FIXED tonearm. You move the stylus relative to the bearing pivot and the spindle - not the tonearm!! The spindle and the pivot bearing are FIXED PARAMETERS because their distance is the FOUNDATION of your tonearms geometry. You can choose different zero-error points on the arc of the tonearm/stylus movement over the LP's surface and by doing so you can - for instance - bring the 2nd zero-error point closer to the inner grooves. However - the basic geometry of your tonearm remains the same. The nice alignment tool provided with every Graham tonearm gives a nice idea. You can align your cartridge to either Loefgren or Baerwald geometry, but you do so without moving the Grahams base - you align at the headshell only......... The groove modulations in any LP are VERY small. A "bit" derivation results in HUGE errors in de-modulating because the VERY TINY polished areas of your stylus are no longer aligned. Thats the difference in playback between distortion-free High-end and "so so" sound with inner groove distortion. 1-2 mm........ well, your polished flanks on the stylus are 2-8 µm (thats 1000th of a millimeter)..... 1-2 mm here are 10 - 20 miles in real world playback. So - in metapher, you are "still in the same county or district, but you are no longer in the same block, you are in a different part of the city - and you will never find the address the Lady gave you to meet her...." In analog playback all quality starts here - at the demodulation in the grooves of the LP. If you do not precisely align 100% here - you will have an endless (and futile...) journey trying to fix problems in your system which you never can locate or solve.
Dear Axelwahl, the pivot bearing to spindle distance does NOT determine were your zero-error points are located. Again - see the Graham alignment tool with 2 options to adjust to either Baerwald or Loefgren - the zero-errors are on different points on the arc, but the spindle-bearing pivot distance is of course the very same on both, as the base of the Graham is not moved, but the adjustment takes place at the headshell ONLY. I guess the point is clear now - isn't it?
Dear Axelwahl, good to learn your mounting distance is fine. If you had checked that earlier, we could have spared some time and space here... Anyway - if you still have inner groove distortion when the tonearm geometry itself is fine, then this can be related to several points:
a) lateral azimuth of the cartridge/stylus b) horizontal azimuth of the cartridge/stylus c) antiskating d) 2nd zero-error point already long passed when you reached the inner grooves (the SME uses an IEC-standard when calculating the zero-error-points. The 2nd point is pretty close to the 1st and in the inner grooves you are close to the maximum error - why this IEC-standard was used and favoured by SME and Ortofon was explained in the "Prices for Oldskool tonearms"-thread. It has to do with the new way to master and cut LPs in the early 1980ies.
a) and b) can hardly be altered in the SME V, but you can try - usually there is a small degree of free movement. Both do have direct impact of the position of the stylus contact area to the groove walls. c) antiskating or skating force as the source of distortion will apply, when the distortion is pre-dominant in one channel only.
Hallo Herr Tonearm :-) and who ever is still with usÂ…
As I said, my tonearm pivot to spindle centre is to SME spec. as it turns out, (with my current cart, Per Windfeld). I thought THAT was the salient point of YOUR departure on the –DEFINITIVE- tracking error as a result, if this measurement is out of spec.
So now as this is right on spec, I try to understand why this should yet also be a problem?
Baerwald or Loefgren have THEIR best interpretation about where the null-points aught to be, Linn has theirs, SME theirs and so on. There is no FINAL and ONLY position where these null-points aught to be, else e.g. Linn and SME would have it ALL wrong the last 50 years --- is what I understand you try to relate, no?
Every 'template maestro' has his own sweet intuition about how to get there, so as to have the least distortion as a result. No problem with that at all, but as always more than one way leads to Rom (and many of course do not, also true).
I just think, if your first point is not the case here (spindle / pivot right on spec. in this here situation) why question the manufacturers 'preferred' set-up, and go on about other set-ups?
The exact arm-pivot to spindle with an e.g. Linn 9" arm is different to SME 9" arm and so is their resulting overhang and therefore their exact set-up. I guess you only let me off if I go with some set-up other than SME's, no? :-)
There is one still relevant item that was not even mentioned this far, that at both null-points, where ever they are picked to be, the cart's cantilever aught to be as close to 90 deg., as can possible be, in order to have at least at these two points 0 deg. tangential tracking error. It seems to me, that it here where the SME (and Linn) arm can cause a problem with a cart's skewed cantileve. The SME arms (just as Linn's) have next to NO play to allow for the cart's cantilever skewness to be compensated, true. With older cart designs itÂ’s less of an issue, since they have no threaded mounting holes but need rather a longer screw and nut for fastening. This allowed (allows) for a slightly bigger margin for twisting the cart body to get the cantilever (rather than cart body only) aligned. And I would agree further, that the method used by Graham seems just about the best to achieve that also! So not all is lost. My last point: I do question greatly whether e.g. Graham arms (any other arm) are mounted, spindle / pivot, to the 100th of a millimetre correct! Never in all your live!
And it was THIS distance's absolute need for TOTAL correctness that stared this dialogue – Egyptian geometry and all – so at least my take. I might have missed something though.
SME also Linn assume that the cantilevers of the carts mounted are not out of true. Experience shows that this is of course not so, but it is a question of the degree of skewness relative to the cart body, with 1-2 deg. seeming the acceptable tolerance, so my understanding by OrtofonÂ’s techies. Now I may only wish that or discourse will be of some edification not just to the two of us :-) Mit bestem Gruss, Axel
Dear Axelwahl, this way this is leading nowhere in an endless circle. It would really make sense if you browse through Google and download the original papers by Baerwald and Loefgren about tonearm geometry and the complex interrelations. Reading them will answer 98% of all your questions and will set the whole theme in the right context. Alternatively ou may send me a direct email (via Audiogon - just click on my alias dertonarm ) with your telephone number and I will call you up and describe the point in both our mother language. So far you still do missunderstand a few points in tonearm set-up and I will gladly clarify them in a short telephone call. Greetings from a lakeside with view to the northern Alps (Zugspitze), dertonarm
Hallo Herr Dr. Tonearm, now this is getting somewhere, very good! This pivot / spindle distance actually only came about because of our protracted discourse, and me having it measured, no effort lost, methinks. Also, some bystanders may profit, all very beneficial, no?
That IEC-standard got pretty well lost in the general 'shrapnel' flying about in the other thread -- at least for me not having been into it earlier.
a)I have addressed, but as you confirm and mentioned, setting it is VERY marginal with the last resort to bore open the mounting holes of the SME arm. Something that I'm not too crazy on doing since the PW cart is not THAT much out of true --- yet it definitely is and previous (new) Ortofon Jubilee had the same issue. (Sent back 3 times, etc. etc.)
b) don't know if that is VTA, please explain to correlate...
c) since it's on-the-fly, easy to test with the SME, tried and found innocent. The distortion is actually ONLY during high energy passages soprano blasting, tenors also at full tilt, sibilants included, as well as higher pitch (mostly) instruments e.g. ff full orchestra violins and sundry crescendos.
d) +++ 2nd zero-error point already long passed when you reached the inner grooves (the SME uses an IEC-standard when calculating the zero-error-points. The 2nd point is pretty close to the 1st and in the inner grooves you are close to the maximum error +++ I'm confident you got that standard sussed, and it would explain exactly what's going on then. Now, how far are these ICE null-points apart, be VERY interesting to know?!
++++ - why this IEC-standard was used and favoured by SME and Ortofon was explained in the "Prices for Oldskool tonearms"-thread. It has to do with the new way to master and cut LPs in the early 1980ies. ++++ I have my take, which may repeat what's been said on the other thread? DG by example had decided to leave a LOT more dead wax to the end (early 80s, yes) to improve on the very IGD issue. That being so, it would explain why null-point 1. and 2. got moved closer together, wouldn't it? Some GREAT ideas don't always do so good like e.g. RCA's Microgroove (...virus).
Now, what about Linn I ask? Also gone IEC-standard? Would be interesting to know (I hope you don't need to repeat all of this...)
Lastly if you want to drop the IEC-standard it will of course need to re-think / set all, by NOT going with the manufacturers supplied tools. Not a very cheerful thought, I say.
Hallo Herr Doctor, Ich must geschimpfen! Sending me on a wild goose-chase for your IEC-standard comments, eish!
None such that my searches will scratch out of this endless pandering stream of "Prices of oldskool tonearms"
Lots of FR tonearm info sure, (I happen to use a FR XF-1 type M SUT). Pitty they're dead and gone; but NOTHING like your mentioned IEC-standard stuff --- so, say a, say b, please let's have your take on all that DMM stuff etc. You sound like you have worked for the "Pallas" (press-works, jawohl!) Gruss, Axel
Hi Herr Tonearm, thanks for the offer re.: calling :-) When I'm looking East (for long enough..) I'll see the Indian Ocean. Methinks, that's gonna be too much phone-cost since we have no real discrepancy in perception anymore. Ain't that something for a change. That other thread is some 'free for all' and next they'll talk about who is better at soccer... no thanks.
Thank you for offering, I do appreciate your unquenchable enthusiasm, jolly good show, I say.
The remaining issue (for me only) is, if I want to change to another then the SME's alignment system --- maybe some day, we'll see. Meanwhile I'll have to stick to the IEC-standard that comes with that SME purchase. Greetings from the Black-Continent. Axel
Dear Axelwahl, all you are asking is explained during the course of the thread mentioned. You either have to keep on reading all through that thread or send me a direct email. This is too much, to repeat all that was written in March during that sometimes very hot discussion in that thread.
Herr Tonearm, I'm going to log out now, I see that we are for some reason out of sync. Your are still busy with my older responses. No problem. Thanks for the great detail offered. Take care, Axel
Hi Axelwahl, you should consider the MINT LP tractor. If you settle for one specific cartridge right now, it is well worth the investment - especially with a SME V. It does provide very good results and is easy and fast to use.
Dear friends: Do you know why the tonearm denomination: 12", 10", 9", etc, etc? what those numbers means?
Well, as you all know is the tonearm effective length this is: the distance between the stylus and the center of the pivot/flucrum/bearing and IMHO this is the foundation of the tonearm calculations parameters.
When we want to design a tonearm ( between other things ) we first determine/think in those 12"-10"-9" numbers ( we are not thinking on overhang or pivot to spindle numbers. ) and is this " number " ( effective length + innermost/ outermost groove radius. ) the one that we introduce in the Baerwald/Loefgren/etc formula to obtain: overhang, offset angle, pivot to spindle distance and null points.
If we change the overhang ( like in the Graham example that " play " between Baerwald and Lofgren. ) alone then we are changing the " foundation " ( effective length ), so this practice is not correct, you can do it and you can do anything you want but that does not means is correct: is wrong.
Every time we change the " foundation " number ( effective length. ) change too the other tonearm parameters.
I'm not talking here if the sound likes you or not I'm only talking of what is right and what is wrong.
We can put an example using first Baerwald:
say 250mm on EL: offset angular, 21.949 degrees; overhang, 16.502mm; P to S, 233.50mm.
now 258mm on EL: offset angular, 21.235 degrees; overhang, 15.956mm; P to S, 242.04mm
Loefgren on 250mm: offset angular, 21.949 degrees; overhang, 16.967mm; P to S, 233.03mm
and in 258mm: offset angular, 21.235 degrees; overhang, 16.404mm; P to S, 241.60mm
Well, it seems to me that that tonearm effective length is in reality the foundation to calculate those critical tonerm parameters.
We have to take care on what we do because " sometimes " we achieve a different target that what we want.
Dear all, to my knowledge the 9" and 12" denomination was introduced by SME with their original 3009 and 3012 tonearms (hence the names...3009 and 3012). Ever since then 9" and 12" is used to describe tonearms which do have an effective length around the 9" or 12" figure. But they all do differ in their effective length - some are very close, hardly any is exactly the same as another. Take a few 12" tonearms as example:
- SME 3012 - 307,34 mm - MAX-282 - 282 mm - FR-66s - 307 mm - SAEC-506/30 - 295 mm
these are all named 12"-tonearms. 12" is 304.8 mm - so none of the above mentioned tonearms is really 12" in effective length. Only the SME 3012 and the FR-66s are close to that measure. Same for the 9" SME 3009 which is VERY close with its 229 mm (the later 3009R has 231,80 mm.......). Well - we can alter the effective length of any given pivot tonearm. And we do. We can do so easy and - in a certain and narrow range. We do this when we adjust/change overhang (and in the same procedure the related offset...) to achive for instance Baerwald or Loefgren based geometry. We had that topic already back in the thread about the "Oldskool tonearms". Take again the Graham alignment tool.......... here you have a very good and clear example. The base (= mounting distance) isn't moved at all. The change is done at the headshell by different overhang and offset. The mounting distance is still fixed. You change overhang and offset to adjust to different zero-error points - not the mounting distance (at least..... you shouldn't....) - not the mounting distance P-S. The mounting distance is the 1st and basic parameter of the calculation of any pivot bearing tonearm.
Dear friends: I think that the Graham is a real 9"=228.60mm tonearm, well here are the results on Baerwald:
offset angular: 24.128 degrees; overhang: 18.173 mm and P to S: 210.43mm
Lofgren B.
offset angular: 24.128 degrees; overhang: 18.690mm and P to S: 209.91
As you can see the offset is the same and the other two parameters are different ( including the pivot to spindle distance. ) where the effective length is the same.
Dear friends: That " calculator " give us many interesting " numbers ", example: the average distortion in a 12" tonerm is 0.3105% and in a 10" is 0.3815%, do you think can we hear the difference?
You can find out that tracking distortion/tracking error at any place/groove position in the LP and can compare between different tonearm lengths where you can ask: can/could I detect those distortion differences? are there real advantages on long tonearms?
This is only an example, there are more information on the whole subject including null points calculations.
Dear Rauliruegas, all I did was displaying the geometrical facts. I don't know why you are so mad about this and why you have so many problems accepting these technical parameters which were and are used in analog playback in the past 6 decades. Again - take the Graham and your comparism between Loefgren / Baerwald:
With the supplied Graham alignment tool you do adjust for either Baerwald or Loefgren. You do so with the detached armwand only and you do all adjustment at the headshell only. When the adjustment to either geometry is done,you fix the armwand to the - never moved... - armbase. So it is quite obvious, that the spindle-bearing pivot (=mounting) distance is not moved.
I think the big missunderstanding is that there are always 2 (TWO) geometrical calculations in tonearm playback.
a) the geometrical calculation of the pivot tonearm itself b) the calculation of the arc with its 2 zero-error points.
b) can always bealtered by changing overhang and offset. In doing so, we change the effective length and set the positons of the 2 zero-error points to different degrees on the arc and further apart or closer together to acommodate to LPs with longer run-out-grooves (IEC standard 1983) . The mounting distance remains the same.
Lets have a look at the tonearms you are using in your home system: SAEC WE-8000, MAX-282, GST-801, AC-4400, IT-407, AR-1M - all these toenarms do not offer any possibility to change the mounting distance. Their bases are fixed. But you can nevertheless adjust tehir geometry to Loefgren/Baerwald or any other other arc-geometry - WITHOUT changing the mounting distance at all. Same for Dynavector, EMT, Ortofon, Koetsu - the huge majority of tonearms does not feature a slide mounting base....... once you have drilled the mounting hole - thats it. You can not change the mounting distance on these at all! They are all fixed. For good reason. The sliding mount of the SME does lead into the erratic idea that mounting distance can be changed freely. This is a geometrical error. Bob Graham used the SME slide mount because that mount was widely available and because it enables the user to adjust the mounting distance precisely to the manufacturers specs.
"Dear friends: Anyone of you can corroborate what I posted here:
www.ispexperts.com/BaerwaldLof...
Dertonarm: where can we corroborate what you posted? "
Where to corroborate my postings on this topic ? In every decent (high-school) book about geometry........... and in the AES chronicles (but those too do demand some basic knowledge and understanding of geometry and interelations).
Dear Friends: I don't want to make this dialogue something " personal ", what Dertonarm or I think or argue about it does not matters, everything on the subject are already " say it " many years ago and the best we can do is to read on it.
Lofgren/Baerwald formulas were develped to obtain the overhang and offser angle in tonearm to " control " the tracking distortions.
Well, in those equations ( overhang/offset angle ) the parameters that they take in count are: effective length ( R or L in the equations. ) and the inner/outer groove radius. These equations have its " foundation " in those parameters not on the pivot to spindle distance.
Like I already say it:the subject is not what you say or what I say but what is wrong and what is correct.
All of us ( anyone ) can read here a very interesting analysis on the whole subject where you can find almost everything, please go to the link and there make click on Download and for the specific equations and notations ( R and L: effective length. ) go to page 30-32:
I have to say that this white paper is really learning for anyone and along with the very first link ( calculator ) that I posted we can " play " to obtain amazing information on the tonearms we own and with the LP we own, like I say amazing. Now many of us can/could understand the whole subject and its implications.
Like I say in my first post in this subject a tonearm designer start/begin choosing the tonearm effective length for the design and not with the tonearm pivot to spindle distance that is only a consequence when we aply the Lofgren/Baerwald equations.
Dear Raul, the Dennes paper is very good indeed. Its a great classic since 2 decades. However - it too does only deal with the "2nd" geometry. Baerwald, Loefgren, bauer, Stevenson etc. - this is all about the geometry of the stylus in a given tonearm. Thats why the mounting distance is not taken into consideration at all - it is not needed in those calculations and it taken as any fixed parameter. These calculations do not deal with a specific tonearm - they deal with the ALIGNMENT OF A STYLUS in an - already mounted to its individual geometry - given tonearm. All these papers do not deal with the basic geometry of the given tonearm.
Maybe we have a big missunderstanding here - I mean there is:
A) a basic geometry of the tonearm itself. This is an individual geometry of a given tonearm. B) then there is the geometry of the stylus in a GIVEN (= its individual geometry already fullfilled) tonearm.
This - I would like to call it "individual" or "secondary" - geometry is kind of universal. It applies to ALL cartridges and have several options to calculate and align the tracking arc and its zero-error points and maxima and minima derivations from the arc.
Dear Dertonarm: Yes, I read and posted in your thread.
I understand that almost all of us are committed to set-up that stylus in the position where make less overall " harm ", that's why those white papers and " calculator " are so useful for everyone.
Dear friends: Now that we are here and that some of us are " playing " with the information there are one or two subjects that can/could help to understand what is happening or what we are listening when ( example ) we buy a new protractor ( any ) and now with the new stylus set-up everything goes " better " ( many times does not goes better but we think it did. ).
With the " calculator " ( extremely easy and informative. ) and everytime you change your tonearm effective length you can calculate the new tracking distortion ( % ), maybe/could be that what you like is higher distortion.
This is one point the other one is that when you change the tonearm effective length through an overhang change you are changing too the tonearm/cartridge resonance frequency ( and change the tone in the sound reproduction. ) and is part of the " new " sound you are listening.
Maybe you can think that 2mm of cartridge movement is not important but it is due that you made that change where the cartridge weight makes more difference in that resonance frequency calculation: at the headshell/farest from the pivot tonearm. Other factor that affects specially on the tonearm/cartridge tracking capacity is that moving mass change with the cartridge position.. I don't know if it is well say it but what I mean is that the tonearm and the tonearm pivot works more " comfortable " when " see " the cartridge weight/mass nearest to it.
You are right - the effective mass does indeed increase when you move the cartridge away from the pivot/bearing. The position of a given cartridge does have some influence on the resonance frequency. Whether it is enough to really contribute to the sound itself has to be explored. The effective moving mass of a pivot tonearm is also (sometimes very drastic...) affected by the weight of the cartridges body (Koetsu's stone bodies.....) and/or the weight of the headshell (lightweight Orsonic AV-11 vs. FR S/3 for instance - a difference of over 21 grams !!!).
Both these units do "sit" at the very end of the "balance gauge" and thus do contribute very strongly to the effective moving mass.
Very interesting point indeed!
This too is one of thereasons why the torsion resistance of a tonearm is so important - the further away the cartridge is, the higher its influence on the mechanic resonance behaviour of the tonearm.
Raul and Dertonarm, Does either of you have an opinion on whether or not the advantages of lower theoretical distortion of a 12" arm outweigh the disadvantages of greater moving mass and potential for slight stylus misalignment being amplified more in a longer arm?
I'm curious about the differences between the 9" SME V and the new 12" SME V-12. This topic is discussed by Michael Fremer in the latest Stereophile review of the SME 20/12 and I'd like to read your opinions. Thanks. Peter
Dear Peter, we have to mate either tonearm with a cartridge with perfectly suitable compliance, - if done so, there will be no trade off in moving mass vs. effective length. Given an ideal match with the compliance of the cartridge, we can assume almost identical conditions in terms of resonance frequency. So the geometrical advantages of the 12"-tonearm will prevail. The sonic advantages will be especially noteable on well recorded opera with comperatively large soundstage. The sonic presentation of the soundstage will be much more stable and the positions of the various singers and their movements on stage will be more precise. So - as I see it - there is no trade off between moving mass and geometrical advantage. I do not want to call again and alone the example of the FR-tonearms (the FR-66 will always beat the FR-64s with any given FR-7 system), so lets go to Ortofon instead:
- do mount a SPU in a 9" Ortofon and in a 12" Ortofon tonearm. Both do have effective moving mass together with the SPU which will result in resonance frequency very close to each other (but it will be lower in the 12" Ortofon). Given exact mount and alignment to the same geometry (Baerwald, Loefgren, Bauer, Stevenson - no matter which, as long as its the same for both), the 12" will prevail in terms of size of soundstage presented, ease of tone and naturalness. All these features are related to lesser derivation from the zero-error-curve - because the 12" tonearm does come closer to the theoretical ideal tangential.
Dear Peter: Your question IMHO has mre than one answer because there are mre than one factor involve.
If we take from the geometry point of view the 12" tonearm always will has advantage ( in theory ) over any other shorter tonearm. But unfortunately things are not so easy.
Looking to LOMC today cartridges the first " trouble " that we have is that the same cartridge, say a Titan i, will have a different resonance frequency with the SME 9" than with its " big brother ", this fact alone preclude a fair comparison ( and I'm not saying that the Titan is the best match for the tonearm, I take it only like an example. ) because that difference in the resonance frequency has its own " sound signature ".
Other subject that Dertonarm already point out: +++ the further away the cartridge is, the higher its influence on the mechanic resonance behaviour of the tonearm. +++++
and in my experience not only for the tonearm torsion resistance factor but depending on the tonearm build material, a 9" arm wand has a different " sound signature " than a 12" arm wand .
In the last three years that Guillermo and I been in our self tonearm designs we made ( and still do it. ) several and different tests and one of them was to have a shoot-out with the same cartridge, different ( same build material ) length on the arm wands, very near resonance frequencies between them ( due that we use different headshell weights ). We do it with 9", 10", 11", 12" arm wands and we find that with the 9" is a clear overall advantage ( what we can hear )but betwen 10" and 12" seems to me that exist a " threshold "/land where it is extremly dificult to discern if there is a 12" advantage in the sound reproduction quality due to the stand alone length factor. Our findings are very interesting because our propietary tonearm build material is almost neutral ( it does not have a " sound " ).
When the build material move away from " neutrality " then the differences are more " obvious ".
We are building a 14" and 16" other ones and we will see what happen, here the challenges are a little different.
I already posted on other thread that when you are in the audio item design ( any ) we learn a lot on the subject because we " live " every design day with the: why's, how's, where's and the like. I hope to finish our tonearm project in the next three months.
What I learn/learned through the tonearm design help me to understand and learn too on the TT " behavior ", that's why in other thread I insist/push hard on TT build materials, this factor is definitive in tonearms and TTs quality performance more than any one can imagine.
Dear friends: I'm sure that many of us some way or the other are understanding in a best way the whole tonearm subjects on geometry/set-up.
One additional point that I want to address is one in reference on what Axel posted:
+++++ " There seems to be a MAJOR discrepancy here with some other expert Forum members that maintain that the pivot to centre-pin distance is NOT of the ULTIMATE importance .... " +++++
that is a mis-understood because the pivot to spindle distance is very important parameter in the right and precise cartridge/tonearm set-up. No one can change this distance free-will with out alter all the other tonearm parameters.
If any one of you analize the calculations examples that I posted you can see that that distance always change and not because a free-will decision but because is a consequence of the use of te Baerwald/Lofgren/others equations.
It is a incorrect/wrong practice ttry to compensate errors somewhere changing free-will the pivot to spindle distance or changing free-will the overhang. We have to remember here that if we change the effective length the equation calculations give us a new overhang/offset angle parameters and a new pivot to spindle distance. We can't change " free " any of those parameters with out alter the others and we must know eactly the new parameters values. Many people that goes that wrong practice forgot all these and forgot that exist a new and different offset angle too.
Of course that any one can do it if they have its own tonearm geometry equations and if not IMHO those almost free-will changes give them higher distortions results, no doubt about.
Like Dertonarm say: here it is not what anyone of us " think "/feel/hear it is pure geometry/mathematics/physics where the best we can do is FOLLOW IT to be nearer to the recording.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
