2. analog
  3. 130230-6882

Curved and Straight Tonearms

Over the last 40 years I have owned 3 turntables. An entry level Dual from the '70's, a Denon DP-52F (which I still use in my office system) and a Rega P3-24 which I currently use in my main system. All of these turntables have had straight tonearms. I am planning on upgrading my Rega in the near future. Having started my research, I have noticed that some well reviewed turntables have curved 'arms. My question: What are the advantages/disadvantages of each, sonic or otherwise? Thanks for any input. 
ericsch
nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

I asked Yip by the Mint tractor who already made two of those

for my other tonearms to make one for my FR-64 but with ''P

to S'' distance of 231,5 mm. According to him and the tractor

I got this meant 246 mm effective lenght, Not 248,13 mm .

But some persons knows everything better it seems.

Ag insider logo xs@2x
rauliruegas
13,095 posts
 
Dear friends: Stevenson made two different alignment solutions, one was A and the B that coincide with LÖfgren A ( Baerwald. ).

Almost all Japanese tonearm manufacturers choosed Stevenson over both LÖfgren alignmente solutions because  they want that distortions at inner LP grooves goes lower and audiophiles took it at the " best " alignment when IMHO it's not and makes no real sense.

Stevenson A reduce distortions at the very end inner grooves but in the other 9/10 of the LP grooves distortions goes a lot higher than both Löfgren solutions. For some of you this makes sense and that's what you like and is the way you are using the FR.

My take here is: why and how is it that any one could likes higher tracking distortions ( 9/10 of LP. ) ( this is a fact a measured fact not an opinion. ) than overall lower distortions with both Löfgren alignment solutions?

Any one can put some ligth about?  @lewm  @genesis168  or some one else?

@lewm / @genesis168 , a little help to understand: both of you are using 231.5 on P to S distance. The overhang that you are using is: 14.8 with an offset angle : 21.15°? or these parameters are different?

Thank's in advance.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.





genesis168's avatar
genesis168
409 posts
 
There is a reason why the Stevenson alignment exists. Yes it is universally known that the Lofgren had a lower overall distortion figure across "most of the playable surface" on the LP. Have you asked yourself why Not only use Lofgren then? We all know the most difficult part of the LP to track is the inner grooves. The outer and middle parts of the LPs are relatively "easier" to track compared to the inner tracks. If you look at the graphs Lofgren vs Stevenson the distortion figures at the inner grooves are way lower hence making it easier for the arm to track. Higher on the outer grooves so what? The outer grooves are easier to track so if you need to choose your compromise then I'd rather take the lower distortion on the most difficult parts to track.

Also, for those who listen to large scale classical music, the crescendo almost always falls at the end of the side. So huge dynamic swings at the most difficult part of the Lp to track. That's why Stevenson works. 

I guess everyone has heard of inner groove distortions and not outer groove distortions so that explains something. Inner groove=difficult to track. 

I am not for or or against any type of alignment. They all work. Stevenson did do his homework and made his compromise. Try it and decide. No sense listening to second hand talk from others. BTW, there is this "new" curve called the Uni-DIN which I like. There is nothing new about it but just a set of compromises taken at the different points just like all the other alignment curves. 

Lastly, there is no use plugging numbers in speadsheet and trying to make sense  at distortion figures and curves. Numbers don't usually tell the whole story. Numbers won't tell you what will sound good or bad. It's just a guide. If you like numbers you should all go and buy some Japanese home theatre receiver.



nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

Dear genesis 168, I actually don't believe in ''collective psychology''.

I think that each of us has his own. But sometimes I am not sure

because people also repait what some other have stated, Say that

''crescendo's by classical music'' are at or near the record end. I

own nearly only classical music and have rarely seen any record

with any music near the end of the record. Then the most

composers of the classical music composed their works long before

records were invented and introduced. So they must be clairvoyant

such that they wrote the crescendos ''for the end'' of the record.

If this is ''the argument'' for Stevenson than no wonder why most

of us prefer Bearwald. BTW what happened with you preference for

the ''P to S'' distance of 231,5 mm by FR-64 which is Bearwald

and not Stevenson?

nandric's avatar
nandric
4,086 posts
 

Dear Lew, I thought that oil and grease are different ''animals''

 but I am not an expert in this domein of knowledge. However

I always try to be kind to you . That is why I deed not mention

Wagner in my last post. I know about your difficult upbringing

because your whole family was fond of Wagner. So you was

 probably forced to listen to even Wagner's soprananos. Curious

but true your love for music was reborn by a trumpet. I was always

wondering why this instrument is regarded as an ''musical

instrument'' but this is the best illustration of the truth of the

known saying ''one man poison...'', etc.

Now back to Wagner. All his opera's are recorded on at least

5 records. This way the Germans cheated me with at least 20

superfluous records because I needed to pay for them while

 those ''5'' could be easilly ''put'' on 4 records. That is if they used,

 say,Stevenson instead of Bearwald. I don't believe that much

imagination is needed to grasp that record companies prefer

to sell more records than less.

More to discover