What interests me is that the idea of an overhung pivoted tonearm seems to date back to about 1940, when Lofgren and Baerwald published their solutions to a question which seems to have been how to devise a pivoted tonearm that minimizes tracking angle error. Those gentlemen seem to have approached the problem as a mathematical or geometrical one, purely. And so their papers introduced the idea of having the cartridge overhang the spindle and then twisting the headshell with respect to a straight line emanating from the pivot. They did this work during what was still a very primitive era in home audio. Stereo did not exist, and most disc players were still of the wind-up variety. Many still used wholly mechanical Victrolas. How it came to be that their work, and also Stevenson’s, was universally adopted by tonearm manufacturers over time is something I would like to know more about. I suspect some major players adopted the idea and eventually everyone else followed suit without much further thought or debate. (I am certainly in no position to say, nor would I wish to claim, that the conventional design is all wrong or even that it is not optimal.) |
My first record player needed to be wound up and played only 78s and the only option was whether to use a steel needle or a hawthorn bush thorn, of which there was a supply in a small metal bowl in the top right corner. The 78s given to me with it included "Cherry Ripe" and "Come in to the Garden, Maud"! Maybe I’m looking for the "hawthorn sound" these days as I gravitate towards Benz Micro? |
Dear @lewm , OP and friends: That some audiophiles as lewm like the VIV " sound " is just anecdotal and does not means the VIV design play performance is better that all the other pivoted designs due that the VIV design is a WRONG design is a wisecrack that makes money. Some questions comes to my mind: why are we looking for system room treatment? why we take care to match speaker/amps or cartridges/tonearm match? why this IC cable over the other? why we choose an electrical special source item? and why, why why? At the end what we are doing with is trying to put colorations/distortions at minimum to preserve the cartridge signal integrity We are not doing that to achieve higher colorations/distortions. Maybe some of us do it but not on porpose.
" And so their papers introduced the idea of having the cartridge overhang the spindle and then twisting the headshell with respect to a straight line emanating from the pivot. They did this work during what was still a very primitive era in home audio. Stereo did not exist, and most disc players were still of the wind-up variety. Many still used wholly mechanical Victrolas. " Lew, for years you are posting the same as a some kind of citic for the alignment solutions and over time you never gave any idea to change that very old kind of alignments that gives certainty of the tracking distortion levels and that puts those kind of distortions at minimum for the cartridge pick up in the best way what is recorded in the LP groove modulation. Only LT tonearms can makes a better job on that specific issue. Obviously VIV can’t do it. That you like it is only an anecdotal that has a value only for you and that’s the same for other owners. It’s a similar anecdotal issue as the Dava cartridge that shows around 5db FR deviations but some like it.
In the other side Baerwald that you named was not involved in the original tonearm alignment solutions:
Was Professor Erik Olof Löfgren of the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. Löfgren’s paper is the earliest work which gives an analytical treatment of tracking distortion and develops a new optimum alignment method to minimise it. Löfgren applied mathematical rigor to the distortion model developed by Olney, and undertook a Fourier analysis on the model.
That was in 1938 and it’s a mistake to name Baerwald along Löfgren because the ONE down there is only LÖfgren, he was the " inventor/creator " only with no one else. Reviewers are wrong too when mention Baerwald instead Löfgren. You spend money as other owners in an audio item that by design is just wrong developing higher distortions, that that higher distortions like you do not say that the design is a top design . The VIV has other kind of not very good design issues that contributes to that " I like it ". When yo said that your other 3 cartridges sounds better in reality is not true BETTER but different because its stylus tip angle is running the grooves in way different angle and a " little " more away of what was recordd- Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS, R. |
Dear Raul, I was wondering what took you so long to comment on my report. I am trying to take the line of least resistance, which is this: If minimizing TAE at the expense of all other possible sources of aberrant forces was so vitally important, then the Viv tonearm ought to sound awful, or at least obviously worse than any reasonably well aligned conventional pivoted tonearm. But we have testimony from many others and now also my own testimony, that it does not sound awful or even worse than any of my four other conventional pivoted tonearms, using any of 3 cartridges that I have owned for a long time and heard previously on good conventional pivoted tonearms. I have no interest in convincing you of anything, but you cannot explain away my results by insinuating that I am not a qualified listener or that my equipment is not qualified to reveal obvious problems due to excessive TAE. (Well, maybe you privately think my Beveridge-based system is not good enough, but most would not.) As many others have tried to get across to you, "I like it", is not a trivial quality when evaluating audio products. Because after all, why are you using what you use? Because "you like it". (Yes, I know you believe you have developed superior listening skills that enable you to choose components that contribute least to "distortions". Standing on that high horse, you can always dismiss commentary that runs against your strong belief system.) Anyway, I hold you in high regard, but I am not surprised at your comments here. Quibbling about who did what, Lofgren vs Baerwald, or whoever, is totally beside the point. If you think Lofgren should receive most of the credit for the idea of stylus overhang cum headshell offset angle, that is fine with me. I have no dog in that fight. |
