Discuss The Viv Lab Rigid Arm

All I know is that the RS LABS RSA1 tonearm violates every “commandment” of modern design:

underhung

not firmly anchored to plinth

cartridge DEcoupled from arm wand

unipivot

pivot is elevated above both cartridge and counterweight

CW dangles in space, free to swing due to LP eccentricity

And yet it works. By comparison, the Viv makes much more overall sense. Raul makes a fair point about the Viv website. There are many questionable claims on that website. You should see the RS labs owners manual. It is laughable. But that does not have anything to do with the results.

lewm

All I know is that the RS LABS RSA1 tonearm violates every “commandment” of modern design ... And yet it works. By comparison, the Viv makes much more overall sense.

Crazy, isn't it? I think there are actually many examples of things in audio that at first glance (or even second, or third glances) wouldn't seem to work. I find it incredible the fidelity we can get from an LP today. I understand the mathematic fundamentals behind digital audio, for example (Fourier, Shannon/Nyquist), yet intuitively it still seems impossible to me.

What interests me about these underhung arms is exactly that - the geometry is contrary to what we've all "learned' is best practice, yet reports from those who've heard it are very favorable. That's worthy of further investigation because it suggests there's something in the current set of accepted best design practices that's either being overlooked, or over- or undervalued. Identifying those underlying factors could lead to better pickup arm designs of every kind, including conventional pivoted overhung arms.

There are people who lack a natural curiosity about the way the world works. For them, there is security and safety in books and policies and theories. But real discoveries - by which I mean both the great ones that change mankind and the small ones that can yield the greatest joy - are usually found in the real world through experience.

Vive la diffe'rence!

I understand the mathematic fundamentals behind digital audio, for example (Fourier, Shannon/Nyquist), yet intuitively it still seems impossible to me.

Like any technology digital had an uphill path to follow. For example jitter was a thing known to cause problems... I have a transport from the early 1990s  (Teac) that was highly respected at the time. But over time its pretty obvious its gone out of date. People update them with better clocks. The newer clock boards you can get on eBay for $20.00 have two orders of magnitude greater frequency stability; after installation this aged transport sounds a lot better...

Some people are dumbfounded by how 'dragging a rock thru a groove' could possibly work; not really realizing that their old saw isn't describing what's happening, because:

There is no substitute for experience.

This is correct.

Its also helpful to know what people have experienced prior to making blanket statements about them. Is mechanical design experience helpful? Is the experience of learning from your mistakes helpful? Is the experience of connecting what measurements we can make with what we hear helpful?

atmasphere

... Is the experience of connecting what measurements we can make with what we hear helpful?

Exactly, and that has been my point in this thread. To make real progress, we need to correlate measurements with what we hear. I think that should be true in all aspects of audio equipment design - not just pickup arms. Obviously others are willing to dispense with the listening part.