2. analog
  3. 1117142645

TriPlanar Tips

The manual that comes with the TriPlanar Mk VII tonearm is fairly complete, but there are a few things I’ve learned only by living with the arm. Note: I do not know which if any of these would apply to previous versions of the arm. My only experience is with the Mk VII.

1. NEVER raise the cueing lever while the arm is locked in the arm rest. This pressures the damping cylinder and could cause a silicone leak. For this reason and also for safety, whenever the arm is in the arm rest the cueing lever should be DOWN. This is backwards from most arms and takes some getting used to.

2. If your Tri-Planar doesn't cue straight down there's a quick fix, which may be included on some new arms. The problem is insufficient friction between the arm tube and the hard rubber cueing support bar. Just glue a bit of thin sandpaper to the underside of the arm tube. Make it big enough and position it so it hits the cueing support bar at all points across the arm’s arc. (Note: after doing this you will need to adjust the cueing height, see Tip #3.)

3. When adjusting cueing height (instructions are in the manual) always do so with the arm in the UP position. This adjustment is VERY touchy, since the cueing support bar is so close to the pivot. Be patient and be careful of your cartridge. (Note: after doing this you may need to adjust the anti-skate initiation point, see Tip #4.)

Chris Brady of Teres told me of a way to improve cueing even more by re-shaping the cueing support. Moving the cueing support point farther from the pivot improves its mechanical advantage and makes the cueing height and speed adjustments less touchy. This mod is easier than it sounds and requires only a length of coat hanger (!), but I don’t have pix and haven’t yet done it myself.

4. Changing the cueing height affects the point where anti-skate kicks in. (Yes, it's weird.) Once cueing height is satisfactory, adjust the short pin that sticks out of the front of the cueing frame. That pin controls where the anti-skate dogleg first engages the knot on the string.

5. The Tri-Planar comes with three counterweight donuts of differing masses. Many cartridges can be balanced using either of two. The arm usually tracks best with the heaviest donut that will work, mounted closer to the pivot. Of course this also reduces effective mass, which may or may not be sonically desirable depending on the cartridge. It also leaves more room for Tip #6.

6. For fine VTF adjustments don’t futz with the counterweight, there’s an easier way. Set the counterweight for the highest VTF you think you’ll need (ie, close to the pivot). Pick up some 1/4" I.D. O-rings from Home Depot. To reduce VTF a bit just slip an O-ring or two on the end stub. Thin O-rings reduce VTF by .01-.02g, thick ones by .04-.05g. Quick, cheap, effective. (For safety, always lock the arm down while adding or removing O-rings.)

7. When adjusting VTA, always bring the pointer to the setting you want by turning it counter-clockwise at least ¼ of a turn. This brings the arm UP to the spot you've selected, which takes up the slop in the threads. You can easily feel this happening.

Hope someone finds these useful. If you know any more, please bring ‘em on!
dougdeacon
dan_ed
2,451 posts
 
As Dertornarm stated before those are
mechanical matters and mechanics don't care about our subjective preference. But according to you and some others it is nearly impossible to get AS right. But whay bother then?

Ah, then it is perhaps Dertonearm's agenda that you project. We get that you, he, and a few others don't like the Triplanar and prefer another arm. If I had to guess I would say it is the Phantom II, based on Dertonearm's postings. You need to understand that we really do not care what you people think and we are quite happy with the Triplanar.

Nandric, this is a thread about ways to possibly get a Triplanar working better for its owner. It is not about you getting a platform to tell us what you don't like about the Triplanar and what other arms you do like. There are plenty of other threads where that is discussed.
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 
Dan_ed, I made the proposal for ,say,two added weights for our Triplanar(08.14.09). I then used the expression 'bias-weight' and caused some confusion,etc.
Now a proposal is not a kind of statement or sentence that
can be true or false. So the logic is not about those kind
of sentences. My proposal is not accepted for different reasons.Many prefer the O rings and those are also weights
though 'tiny' kind.
I made no single statement about,say,'the quality' of the
Triplanar but only expressed my 'wish','desire',etc for
more AS weights.
Now you constructed somehow my proposal or wish as a kind of premise and 'deduced' from there some bewildering statements:
Nandric has his own 'agenda' + the agenda 'projected from Dertonarm'.
Nandric 'don't like the Triplanar and prefer another arm'.
Nandric use (the forum) as 'a platform to tell us what (he)
don't like about the Triplanar',etc. Bravo!
BTW your guess about the Phantom is as successful as your
'logical deductions';I never owned an Phantom of eny kind
and I am also not in possesion of any FR's of Dertonarms kind.Besides I am also an 'owner of Triplanar' so it is very difficult to put me outside the quantifier 'WE'(the owners).
Regards,
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 
Hi all,This tread is not progressing and it may be my fault.There is always this problem how detailed an contribution should be with the obvious chance of incompletness. So I mentioned that 'proposals' are not statements that can be true or false but deed not,say, elaborate on this. Well of course one can argue about the sense,the nonsense,the practability.etc. of an proposal.
In my proposal about,say, more AS weights the argument was:
there is no way one can produce one or more AS weight such that this will solve the problem. I.e. assuming some metal-kind of AS weights. Regarding the O rings,that are also
'weights' the argument is,I assume,that those are such 'tiny' weights that one can add or reduce the weight in such small increments that one have more chance to rich,say, the Nirvana.
Well I like to try both. The O rings are on the way and I also discovered one ,I hope,'competent machinist' as Lewm
recommended.I ordered 3 AS weights so I will,I hope,reach some kind of 'super symmetry'.Besides I will have my own cardinal number 4 because there will be as meny 'F things'as 'G things' in my 'set' of weights so I will be able to establish 'one to one correspondence'whenever I will.
I also owned the model VI of theTriplanar and had the same problem with the AS weight. But I thought that I can solve this problem by myself and bought the most complex 'FERM
TOOL' ,with 40 attachments. The idea was to cut progressively 'tiny' parts of the AS weight and then check the results,etc. Alas I cut also some pieceas of my left-hand finger. So I know that this Lewm is a smart gay,even long before he is going to sleep so no wonder he insist on a 'competent machinist'. I hope that I also become smarter in between.
Regards,
lewm
13,281 posts
 
Dear Ralph (Atma), What cartridge are you using that requires no AS compensation? I know that Doug uses the ZYX Universe.

Nandric, I am very sorry you had to pay so much for your Triplanar. However, as you yourself noted, most of the money did not go to Tri; it went to all those middle-men you mentioned. But I would add in your defense that even $4000 is still a ton of money to most of people who are not obsessed with this bizarre hobby. What interests me is that it now seems that you have been convinced that the single AS weight that comes with the Triplanar is too heavy for quite some time. What drove you to that conclusion, and when? What cartridge are you using with it that seems to dislike AS? Or is it just that you want to try the minimal to no AS approach espoused by Doug?

I don't know whether I am smart or not, because if I did think the AS weight was impossibly heavy, I might indeed clamp it in a vise and go at it with a hacksaw. After I ruined it THEN I would probably first call Tri for a replacement and then call up a competent machinist, which I am not.
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 
Dear Lewm,The problem is,as always I think,in the premises
or assumptions (aka'knowledege versus ignorance'). Papier
was a genius so he of course thought about his anti-skate
construction and the AS weight. Then there were different
methods to adjust the ant-skate. I already mentioned: grooveless LP; the test-records with 'tracking test',etc.
Those are in some sense 'prescribed' or 'recomended' to us.
So we used these methods assuming that they are 'right'.
But then we learn that this is not the case so we become insecure. Not a pleasant state of mind. So we want to try
something else or anything. Our forum is mainly about such
'dilemmas'.So we get different 'proposals' that I also mentioned and even tryd to 'disclose' their 'nature'.But our forum is also about,say,'passion' so some members get
angry when they hear something they don't like. This causes
then 'accusations',etc. I owned the Triplanar VI and own
the VII and am 'in'the Triplanar for more then 10 years.
But I am still 'pressuposed' by some members to 'hate' or 'dislike' the arm. You are asking why I am 'convinced'
that this (actual) AS weight is to heavy. Well Lewm this
is my assumption because I learned that others don't use this weight at all. But I also mentioned that I give up
the 'concept' anti-skate as well as attempts. Not 'exactly'
true but this is,it seems to me,a kind of evidence that I have no idea what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' with this
anti-skate enigma.But I also want to try 'anything' so I will get the O rings as well as 3 more AS weights. My,say,
'provisional' method is to use the test-record and 'rich'
50 mu (to be sure)because I learned that this is 'necessary' and then do the rest by listening to the so
called 'critical LP's' ( Rigoletto but not the 'Ring').
Regards,
More to discover