Discuss The Viv Lab Rigid Arm

Dear @richardkrebs : For me the main issue it’s not if we can see that the cantilever move to the rigth side ( the tonearm ASmechanism helps a little gainst that " rigth side " magnitude. ) the main issue for me is if the stylus tip is in the grooves angle tha Löfgreen alignments measured all over the grooved LP surface:

Next link we can appreciate what happens down there during play proccess:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYE67fVny4c

against the stylus tip grooves ridding friction developed huge forces the skating seems to me can't change the measured tracking angle all over the LP surface .

R.

That's why too cartridge compliance and frequency ( cartridge/tonearm )  resonance are so critical an important in the grooves tracking issues.

R.

And please don't forget too how good or not the tonearm is self  damped by design.

against the stylus tip grooves ridding friction developed huge forces the skating seems to me can't change the measured tracking angle all over the LP surface .

you are incorrect.

both skating / anti-skate and groove modulation effect the cantilever angle. My estimation is a 3dB change in excitation level or a 1.5g change in skating force is enough to make a Lofgren A move about 1/2 way towards a Lofgren B alignment. (~0.25° of zenith change)  

dave

Important issue is stylus tip angle. Now, Löfgreen A to B alignment amkes almost no significant tracking distortion level modification ( only changes where the levels change between null points. ) and still lower than no-offset angle tonearm designs that’s the issue here.

The issue is not to look at each post wich " word " you can " attack " but which made a way significant difference between off-set and non-offset angle tonearm designs.

R.