Discuss The Viv Lab Rigid Arm

The problem with the ’mechanical engineering’ view is when you define a "goal" or a "standard" then it can easily be seen if that goal is met and an unassailable judgement made. No consideration is given to the absolute magnitude or the underlying importance of the goal to begin with. As Lew pointed out above....if vanishingly low distortion is set as the goal then the system with the lowest distortion must always be best.

@intactaudio 

Regarding the distortion comment (since I can’t seem to just let that lay there...), it matters what kind of distortion it is. This is part of why the measurements are important- some kinds of distortions are unpleasent and other kinds are innocuous to the ear. I’ve talked probably too much about this elsewhere so won’t go into it more than that.

Regarding your comment about ’no consideration is given...’ as far as I can make out this simply isn’t true. What is true is we have a lot of designers that lack education that would be useful in their field. Lacking that they rely on stories to get around the elephant in the room. Human nature being what it is, often we can be convinced to believe those stories too.

what happens when the modulation is so extreme that it is actually considered mistracking? Is it at all possible that not being 100% rigidly coupled could cause the recovery from mistracking to be more benign? Now consider that mistracking is not an all or nothing type of proposition and is constantly happening and I seriously have to question the importance of the rigid coupling anyone demands. Everyone is allowed their choice of compromise and the choices by Viv Labs and the supporting anecdotal information is really interesting to me. Productive discussion about the factors involved is helpful to all and it seems at least plausible to me that the lack of rock solid coupling and anti-skate could make say 5° of tracking error on the Viv Labs more sonically benign than a lesser amount of TAE on a ’traditional arm’. One other thing that strikes me as odd in this all is that if TAE is truly the sole arbiter then why do the shorter underhung arms seem to be preferred?

Having run an LP mastering studio I can tell you that the limitation of modulation in the groove and the most of the distortion of the LP are all in the playback side rather than record. This places the performance (or lack thereof) almost entirely in the hands of the end user.

Mastering engineers know this, and so they really don’t put so much modulation in the groove as to cause a reasonable pickup to mistrack (we used an old SL1200 with a Grado Gold for our ’reasonable pickup’; if it could track the cuts we were making we knew we were in good shape). That’s a pretty old lesson, going way back to the Living Stereo era, when RCA cut the original Pines of Rome that tended to knock the rather primitive pickups of the time right out of the groove. Put simply, what you propose in your first question isn’t a thing.

If the coupling isn’t there as I have talked about, one of the results is more mistracking. IOW it works opposite of what you propose. This is simply because the arm is putting more energy into the cantilever.

Most audiophiles I know really want to get as close to the musical event as they can. The idea that the rig is designed to not do that is anathema. At any rate if the system has the rigid coupling (and deadness) as I wrote about, one thing that is instantly audible is how much better the bass is, which, if compared to CDs or RtR tape of the same recording, will be shown to be every bit as good, much to the chagrin of both camps’ advocates. But its more than that, with the rigidity also comes a more transparent midrange and smoother highs (particularly at volume), since its less susceptible to airborne vibration. This is one of those things that is not just easy to measure; its also easy to hear.

Regarding your last question, how do you know that underhung arms are actually preferred? Do you know of a poll regarding such??

@atmasphere I do like this description, it does somehow resonate with thoughts I have been having, as a result of having experiences of the use of a Tonearm and Platter Spindle Bearing that are modified and have the Tightest of Tolerances put in place for the machining, as well as other measures to create a friction free function.

Add this to a extremely speed stable TT, as a result of modification, it has brought me to the point where there perception is that something is present during the replay that is not usually detected, the overall replay has become a betterment to other experienced methods.

I am of the assumption at present the mechanical weakness now being incurred within the system is the Cartridge, as the assembly is not of a mechanical design to offer the best match to the TT>Tonearm.

I have attempted to resolve this by having a Ortofon Brand Cartridge rebuilt by a Technician using TOTR Ortofon Cartridge Internal Parts and produced to above factory spec' finish, by a Technician who has freelanced to Ortofon, and was instrumental in the development of the Windfeld PW.  

With such tolerances engineered for the Tonearm and TT's function, and the attempt made to have a Bespoke Cartridge produced, that was 'hopefully once' a match in mechanical function. In relation to 'hopefully once', I am also of the assumption, as a result of wear and tear/collected contamination, the Cart' will be the first to yield its mechanical properties to the point of creating a lesser performance.

The centering of the hole formed in the LP to the groove centre, if not centred to within a specific dimension, will I assume, also be detectable as having an impact on the SQ being produced.

I do believe the TT's Platter Spindle Modification addresses a substantial proportion of a eccentric rotation, especially when considering the Platter Run Off is in the low microns when measured.

It would be nice to have all LP's play at a dimension of eccentric rotation inaccuracy of 0.1mm or less, but the time required to create this. Is in my view going to equate to a lot of faffing around. I will accept the avoidance of this as a 'vice, in relation to caring about all parameters required to extract every morsel of accurate modulation tracking during a Vinyl Replay. 

As always the above is about equipment/tools that are required to have a mechanical/electrical function to enable a replay of recorded music.

It has nothing to do with enjoyment being experienced from a musical encounter. This is achievable though a variety of methods, of which one method or a selection of methods will prove successful.

Equipment is a tool and the more one learns about the merits of a particular design and the more that is known about the way a design has been produced, the more reassured one is that when using certain items for a LP replay, that there is thought gone into assembling the important ancillaries to be used. The knowing will be beneficial to the end user, offering confidence in their choices made, to enable the replay to be carried out with an accuracy put in place for the sound storage mediums replay requirement.       

@alan60 , It doesn't which is why I own a Schroder CB. Mr Schroder would argue that the string is pulled so tight by the neodymium magnets that it is essentially rigid. Anti skate is applied by twisting the string. The arm is also naturally dampened by the tension on the string. It is a great example of Mr Schroder's lateral thinking but not my cup of tea. On the other hand His LT model is a brilliant design and I will own one when I have a table I like that it will fit on. The CB, IMHO is as good as a pivoted offset arm gets. It ticks off every single important design feature. The only other arms that do this are the SME V, the Reed 2G, the Kuzma 4 Point, Origin live and the TriPlanar. There may be a few I am not aware of.

@lewm , You have to be kidding me Lew. After all I have said about measurement microphones, digital signal processing, and crazy microscopes? I measure everything that affects the performance of my system. If you don't you are out to sea without a compass.

@intactaudio , see my post above to alan60

@pindac, you build your own equipment, any of it? You measure the performance of your system with anything other than your ears? You been doing this since you were 4 years old. You spend 10 years installing very expensive systems in the homes of rich people to pay your way through medical school? You sir are a totally subjective nightmare. 

@atmasphere , 1++ Excellent dissertation Ralph. 

@rauliruegas 1++ Ditto. The key it is to maintain objectivity as far as you can and save the subjectivity for areas you can not measure or control. The Tonearm is not one of these areas. The Speaker/Room is by far the most difficult issue and subjectivity has to creep in. Here there are issues of taste and preference that go beyond measurement. It is still important to measure and understand everything you can.

@wallytools , JR, your opinion is always welcome here. Nobody is shooting at anybody and heated discussions are not a bad thing. Sometimes you have to be very specific to get the message across. There are always a few...total subjectivists around. The Viv arm is a great example of them in operation. They are entitled to ruin their own systems. But, others read these posts and I hate to see them swayed by alchemy. Yours is a voice of reason and should be heard especially when it comes to tonearms and cartridges.  

@mijostyn I take it you have a very short recollection, as I know you read all my posts.

I don't build anything, apart from a CDT and a few stored Cartridges, every device in use is Bespoke produced, either built from scratch or a available product undergone Substantial Modification, such as the Tonearm, Cart', Phonostage, Pre-Amp in the Making, Power Amps, Speakers.

I have fortunately never been too fixated on one system only and have as a result, of being social in the world of HiFi in my Country been demonstrated numerous devices used for analogue replays.

Like all, I arrive at a demonstration as an individual intending on using my ears, to assess the impact the set up can have on myself. When an impression is seen as valuable, the learning about the factors present that are contributors are usually encouraged to be openly discussed. Topics such a room conditioning, equipment and equipment matching, cabling, modifications or bespoke designs are the subject under discussion.

Discoveries are made that can not be made hiding away in a room, with a head full of fanciful/delusional ideas in relation to HiFi equipment. Relying on a few tools to substantiate the findings with only one interpretation of the data produced, if produced accurately at all, does not cut it for me, in relation to you.

I have already in this Thread seen your very biased and selective description of what is a audiophile, to prove your point. 

As said, lets see where the snobbery displayed by the few in cahoots goes.   

.