Discuss The Viv Lab Rigid Arm

Bravo to Lewm for actually buying the Viv Lab arm and then trying it out with 3 carts…and then explaining what he did and what he heard.
 
I have had the Viv Labs arm for a few years now (HA9 as well) and have followed this thread with the chagrin and shaking of the head reserved for all too many Audiogon threads….So I am glad to see these posts reporting direct experience (for the nth time) of this arm that has been, mocked, ridiculed and rejected—by those who have never used or heard it because they “know” better.

In order for the arm to work with the GP Monaco, my Viv Lab arm sits on a Sierra Sound arm pod (NAB-1 Tonearm Platform). Both the tt and the Viv Lab/pod are on a Stacore platform.

The NAB-1 provides the necessary height for the arm, but also and crucially, the NAB-1 is raised and lowered via threaded spikes, using a 3mm hex wrench to make tiny adjustments in overall arm height and to exactly level the arm.

Without this pod, moving the arm up or down requires loosening a set screw to raise and lower the entire upper half of the arm, which often results in gross movement rather than precision.

Leveling the arm is also crucial to its performance, which the SS pod also makes a snap.

Of course, if you don't need the additional height or pod, you will have to find another way of precisely raising and lowering the arm. The deck of cards method recommended in the Audio Beatnik review works, but rather clumsily.
 
NB: Mike at Sierra Sounds assures me that a new batch of NAB-1 pods will be available later this year.

Correction: the NAB-1 is currently in stock at Sierra Sound.

What I was commenting on is the lower limit of the necessary distance between the base of the Viv and the stylus tip, if one wants to level the arm wand, which is 45mm. I neglected to mention that if the base of the arm is situated so that the distance needs to be greater than 45mm, then the upper part of the arm which carries the pivot and etc, can be raised an additional 10-20mm and fixed in place with a set screw. Thanks for pointing that out.

The point I most wanted to get across is that, if you take as gospel the emphatic declarations that this tonearm and others like it cannot possibly work because of excessive TAE or whatever else, then the result of my listening tests should have been disastrous, on the negative side. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, I find myself listening to the Viv/ZYX most of the time, even though I have five other tonearm/cartridge combinations at my disposal at any time.

Dave, on the one particular LP I sampled, 72mm from the spindle is nearly the innermost playable groove. The actual recommended distance of ~90mm from the spindle is at least two-thirds of the way from outermost to innermost on that particular LP. Of course, one is free to ignore the template.

Hey Lew,

This arm is a paradox.  It clearly does not appear to have the same 'weighting' for TAE as a conventional pivoted tonearm.  Mijo mentions above that there is skating in all non-linear trackers but I think it needs to be clear that the nature and magnitude of the skating on a traditional arm is much greater than that of its underhung brethren.  I mentioned earlier in the thread that when I placed an underhung arm on a blank record surface it pretty much stayed where I put it with no anti-skate dialed in.

When we get to a situation like this where experience conflicts with traditional beliefs I always tend to side with the experience and then look for the unique details of the specific situation to try to better hone my views on the traditional.  In an underhung arm the single null point can be manipulated by either changing the amount of the underhang OR changing the zenith.  My gut feel is to set the zenith to keep any skating to a minimum then adjust the underhang to set the null.

dave