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
paperw8
165 posts
 

08-28-10: Thom_mackris
Dear Paperw8,

You went to the effort to quote my comment about the the THIN BAR to which the trough mounts, and then conveniently side-stepped my point by IGNORING this bar and turning your attention to the trough itself.

The (relatively) heavy trough hangs off this (relatively) flimsy bar. I don't have time to make this any more obvious to you.
What is obvious to me is that you have a different tonearm than I have, because on my tonearm, the bar is rigid. In fact, the entire assembly of the trough and bar is rigid. It does not look like "flimsy" construction to me.

You didn't say what it is that you design, but it doesn't appear to be electronic equipment (then again, judging from your comments about quantum mechanics, I gather you aren't a physicist either - as it turns out, I took a class in quantum mechanics when I was in college). If you look at the specifications of some audio equipment, you see that some makers list data that seem to have no practical value other than to look impressive. For example, the frequency response of an amplifier at 200KHz is of no significance to me - I can't hear frequencies that high anyway.

This is the point, you try to sort out what matters and what doesn't matter from the constant barrage of claims that you see relating to audio equipment. To sort it all out, you need more than buzzwords; you need good data and information. You say you're hearing what you're hearing. I'm not saying that you're aren't hearing what you say you're hearing. But if you can't give a logical explanation for why you are hearing what you are hearing, your opinion has less value to me. On the other hand, opinions that are attached to some rationale have more value to me. That's not being dismissive, and that's not being closed minded that's just my saying that you haven't given me enough information. I ask for a logical explanation and all I get are "wizard of oz"-type assertions of "we know what we're talking about! Don't question our knowledge!" Neither you, or anyone else here, owes me any specific information but I do evaluate information based on the extent to which it makes sense to me.

I mean, when I read stuff on this forum, one reaction that I have is that I find myself thinking with amazement over how some guys seem to blow a lot of time and money constantly turning over new equipment in pursuit of some "ultimate" audio experience. Hey, if you're got the time, money and motivation, then from my perspective, have at it - it's your time and your money as far as I'm concerned. But I'm just not one of those people who is looking to go out of my way to spend large amounts of time and money on audio. I'm thinking about it now because I am in the process of replacing components in a system that I have had for over a decade.
dan_ed
2,451 posts
 
What is obvious to me, Paperw8, is that you have had your TP for a few months, we're going on many years of our own experiences with the TP. I have had my TP for five years and I know that is far less than the length of time Thom and Doug have owned their arms. I see that you are relatively new to Audiogon, so maybe we all need to get to know one another a little better before we go poking sticks, or tapping, in other people's faces.

Tapping on a Rega to find resonance points is one thing, tapping on a Triplanar is plain foolish and will not reveal the differences in nuance that these tips address. The vibrations created at the cartridge are entirely different from the vibrations you created by tapping on your arm. Your empirical observations are completely irrelevant to what happens in the cart/arm during playback. And let's not forget that the particular cart in use will have an impact on the vibrations the arm sees.
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 
Dear Paperw8, I am not sure what you mean by 'logical explanation' (08.27.10). I thought that logic is about 'deduction'. Ie if the premise is true and deductions
correct, then the deduced statements must be also true.
Are you questioning the premises of your,uh, opponents?

Regards,
thom_at_galibier_design's avatar
thom_at_galibier_design
729 posts
 
Dear Paperw8,

Your point about people blowing more time and money is absolutely spot on, and it is work like Doug's in understanding the gear he owns that adds to the volumes of information on this forum.

At your leisure, take a look at Doug's posts, and you'll find a host of them where he advises postesrs to slow down, put their checkbook back in their drawer, and get to know their gear better.

In response to your question, I manufacture turntables (http://www.galibierdesign.com/).

I also sell the Tri-Planar, so I'm fairly familiar with it. I purposely described the cantilevered bar that supports the damping trough as RELATIVELY flimsy. Yes, it appears to be rigid, but the type of movement we're talking about can be sonicaly significant if the rest of the system is up to resolving it.

Now, if the turntable has its own problems, then removing the trough is a waste of time. The turntable's problems will mask tiny, incremental improvements. This is what my reference to following the turntable hierarchy was about - paying attention to your turntable before considering upgrades to arms and cartridges.

This brings up another interesting point. Frequntly, you can make three or four subtle changes that collectively can snap your head to attention. One needs to be cognizant of that as well.

The damping trough has been with the design of the arm for ages - I believe with the Mark II version when Herb Papier (its creator) was still with us. This was back when many MC cartridges were fairly poorly behaved (vibrationally), and it served a useful purpose back then. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think it's great that Tri-Planar still provides it. You never know when you'll need it.

You're right that many specs and numbers can be meaningless. What I would add to your comments is that when they are taken in a vacuum they have almost no context.

IMHO, when someone quotes a wide bandwidth design, the question I would ask is "what were your design goals and how does wide bandwidth help to achieve them?".

Surely, we don't hear as well as bats, but there may be a solid rationale behind a wide bandwidth design - not one whose end state is frequency response out to 200K.

Here's an example I'm mor familiar with. On the other side of the frequency spectrum, you'll find tube amplifier manufacturers quoting a -3dB point of 3 Hz. You might conclude that "I can't hear anything meaningful (or even feel it) below 20-30 Hz, but you would be missing the point.

The whole idea behind a -3dB point of 2-3Hz is that all of the phase shifting resulting from the power supply filters is done and gone, in the 3-4 octaves it takes to reach frequencies where there is audible, musical content.

What you'll hear with a design like this is better timing in the music.

Welcome aboard. We really don't eat our young, although at any given point in time, we all have our bad days.

If you happen to be attending this year's Rocky Mountain Audiofest, drop by in either Suite 1130 or 1030. Ralph at Atma-sphere is always there, and Tri Mai of Tri-Planar always shares a room with him. You'll likely get to meed Doug and Paul as well. It's fun time.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier
paperw8
165 posts
 

Tapping on a Rega to find resonance points is one thing, tapping on a Triplanar is plain foolish and will not reveal the differences in nuance that these tips address. The vibrations created at the cartridge are entirely different from the vibrations you created by tapping on your arm. Your empirical observations are completely irrelevant to what happens in the cart/arm during playback. And let's not forget that the particular cart in use will have an impact on the vibrations the arm sees.
Heretofore, people have just thrown around the term "resonance" without saying exactly what they were talking about. It appears that you are citing a specific resonance: namely, the resonance in the cantilever of the cartridge. This is something that I can work with.

From what I understand, concern about cantilever resonance is a legitimate concern. However, the way that you address that concern is to know what you are doing before you buy the cartridge. For example, it is not a true statement that the trough in the Triplanar is "vestigal"; if you use a low compliance cartridge with the Triplanar you can have problems with resonances in the cantilever. That was why the trough was put there - for use with low compliance cartridges; and there are companies (like Clearaudio) who still make low compliance cartridges. The thing to do, then, is to look at the specifications for the cartridge to determine where the resonance is likely to be if you install it on a Triplanar tonearm. As I understand it, you typically want the resonant frequency to fall in the 8-12 Hz range.

Now, if there are other sources of resonances to which some here are referring, where the source or potential cause is not articulated, then I can't work with that. But what I do know, is that it appears to me that there is a fair amount of effort involved in removing the trough from the Triplanar. I don't know why I should undertake that effort other than for the fact that I read some comments from people who proclaim that it will make a difference and that, somehow, if I can't tell the difference then the fault lies in my hearing or in my system. I make no personal statement about anyone making such assertions, but the way that I think about things, it's hard for me to work with these kinds of claims if I don't understand the underlying physical phenomenon that I am trying to address. My training is in electrical engineering and not in the arts, so I think about this stuff differently.
More to discover