Discuss The Viv Lab Rigid Arm

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.

@lewm  : Where posted I the VIV should sounds awful? what I posted is:

" 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 "

Where posted I? :

""by insinuating that I am not a qualified listener or that my equipment is not qualified to reveal obvious problems due to excessive TAE. ""

The main issue is this:

" 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. "

Cartridge tracking distortion level has a direct interrelationship with the cartridge tracking angle and as near this tracking angle is to tangential as nearer will be the stylus tip to pick up what " really " are recorded in those groove LP modulations.. Other tonearm " aberrations "/colorations/distortions developed by each single different tonearm design is other matters as is its set up.

Everything the same Löfgren alignment first than all puts us nearer to the recording other than tangetial designs. What could happens after that is another kind of subjects, because first that all is to pick up those grooves information in the " nearer the rigth " way.

" I have no dog in that fight. "  well, you are seen a " fight " where did not exit or existed: NEVER existed because Löfgren:

"  he was the " inventor/creator " only with no one else. "

Can you see a fight there?

R.

And my point, which apparently you are intent upon ignoring, is that the theory would predict that the Viv should sound grossly distorted (your term) compared to any decent overhung pivoted tonearm with headshell offset, and it does not, in my hands in my system to my ears. (And also apparently to many other pairs of ears.)  That proposition leaves aside the question of whether the Viv is better or not, compared to conventional tonearms. You are cordially invited to come have a listen, if you happen to be in the Washington, DC, area. 

From now on, I promise to credit Lofgren and only Lofgren with the algorithm that led to modern pivoted tonearm design. I don't care who gets the credit, and it has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand.  That is what I meant by having no dog in that fight.  It's an aphorism used by native English speakers. My real point is that his work was to solve the problem of how to minimize TAE with a pivoted tonearm. That's purely a question of geometry. 

The most recent challenges are based on the very obvious differences in the Geometries selected.

As said before I have received enough information through this Thread to have been stimulated and influenced, resulting in the request being made to a Tonearm designer to incorporate a underhung design into a upcoming comparison and evaluation of Tonearms.

Even when the Geometry of the New Design Tonearm is one that is very closely matched to the 'Viv', the experience will not in any way allow for assuming the Tonearm resembles the 'Viv' in use. There will be quite obvious differences in the Mechanical Interfaces used for each design.

What will be learnt is how the conventional Geometry used on a Tonearm of a particular design, compares to the same design Tonearm with an alternative Geometry.

I am today, as a result of having encountered experiences gathered over the period of multiple years, left with a certainty that when Tonearms are experienced in use using the alignment Geometries from Lofgren, Baerwald or Stevenson, it is neither of these alignments that are responsible for showing out the noticeable differences that can be detected between presentations.

Setting to one side the variations of Cart' and devices in use for a system, that can easily be suggested as accountable for a producing a noticeable difference, there is also the Mechanical Structure of the Tonearm and the methods used to produce the Mechanical Interfaces in a Tonearm.

I am today very interested in Tonearms that have been designed to be with a extremely low friction impact on the mechanical interfaces, the Tonearm I have in use at present has many man hours required to create this condition. 

I can't but help feel that the positive impression being made from use of the 'Viv' by @lewm, is additionally influenced by experiencing a Tonearm with an alternative Mechanical Interface, inclusive of methods for transferring/dissipating energy not seen in a conventional design. 

 As for Geometry options, I am using for more that 8 Years and remaining contented using the Stevenson Geometry.

I don't feel the need to revisit any other similar Geometries as means to replace Stevenson, but do like the idea of experiencing a Geometry that is quite different in concept.