2. analog
  3. 1032024188

Strange Tonearm Tweak. Long

As you all know, I am a little different. I like to read and study stuff like tonearm technology. I noticed that some of the better unipivot designs have employed "outrigger" style outboard weighting systems on their arms, that work like a tightrope-walker's balance pole. This not only balances azimuth, but also gives the arm better stability to lateral deflections from the cartridge suspension, so the arm is not moved when the stylus is pushed laterally by the groove information. I began to think on this, and I wondered why no gimbal-bearing arm makers are doing this. Surely since the vertical plane rides on a vertical axis bearing, there is still some chance for the arm to be laterally deflected by the stylus, when the stylus should be doing all of the moving, not the arm. I think that this is why they use heavy arms, but a heavy arm in the vertical movement plane is not good for tracking. A heavy arm in the horizontal movement plane is good for resisting sideways deflection that would impair pickup function.

So I decided to try increasing the mass of my tonearm in the lateral plane, while keeping it light in the vertical plane, by the use of "outrigger" weights, just like a unipivot does.

I bought lead fishing weights that looked like long rifle bullets(just the lead part) They were about an inch long and about 3/8" diameter, and weighed 12 grams each. I drilled into the bases about 1/4" and press-fitted them onto the nuts that hold the arm into the bearing yoke, so they stuck out straight sideways, like sideways spikes. This put the weight out pretty far to the sides as outriggers, and kept the weight centered exactly around the bearing pivot axis so it did not increase the vertical mass significantly, but it did very slightly. It did not influence the tracking force at all.

So now the arm had outrigger stabilizers on it in the horizontal plane of motion.

I put on a record and sat down to listen. Let me tell you, fellas, this was a mind blower. I have never heard this much information come out of a cartridge before. I heard sounds on records that I had listened to for 30 years, and never knew those sounds were on the record! And I have had some pretty good analog gear in my time. And what I didn't own, I heard at the audio store I worked at. This is the most astounding mod I have ever heard on a tonearm. And it cost me $1.49 for the fishing weights, and I got 3 extras.

The only slightly negative thing about it, is that it increases the anti-skating force, so you have to cut that back a little, and if you have some marginal scratches that might skip, they are more likely to skip with this mod, due to the resistance to sideways movement provided by the outriggers. I had this happen once last night, but I didn't consider it a problem.

But the increase in dynamics, and detail and overall sound quality is astronomical. It blew me away.

I have a DL103, which is a very stiff cartridge, and it may be that this is not needed for a higher compliance cart. But, I think that it would be good for anything that is medium or lower in compliance.

The key to it, is that it only increases the resistance to sideways movement, without interfering with the effective mass of the arm, or the vertical swing movement that needs to stay light to track warps. I played some warped records with this mod, and they played just as well as without the mod, except they sounded better.

I have a pretty good analog setup now, but I can say without reservation, that this mod made my rig sound better than any analog rig that I have ever heard in my life. I have never heard a Rockport.

Stabilizing the arm against unwanted lateral deflection increases the information retrieval and dynamics by a very large percentage. If your arm is not set up like a Rega style arm, then you can glue a 1 ounce long rod across the top of the bearing housing(sideways) like a tightrope-walker's balance pole. Use lead if you can, it won't ring. You don't have to do any permanent changes to your arm that might wreck its resale value to try this out. If it has anywhere near the effect on your system as it had on mine, you won't be taking it off.

It may come close to the movement of your cueing lever, so make sure you have clearance to use it. Mine was close, and I have to come in from the side now to use the lever, at the end of a record. That is fine with me! This was a major, major improvement in the sound of my rig. It is staying permanently. As in "forever".

If you are a little tweak-oriented, and not afraid to do stuff like this. You should try it. It will knock you over.
twl
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
Time to go watch "The Sopranos", so I'm being brief. Basement & Twl, my TT/arm was mentioned above (OK, way above), but it is a garden variety Technics SL-1200 with its stock arm. Also as mentioned before, the damper will be from KAB, and it is specifically designed for the Technics (the KAB website has some interesting stuff - check it out). FWIW, the arm is about 11-12g, I believe, which is supposed to mate fine with my B-M Glider M2. If you are familiar with this design, Twl (and who isn't?), you will know that there is no way a weight could be attached to the left side of the horizontal axle, because the sideways-U shaped bracket that fixes the upper vertical bearing is in the way. I'll have to get back to you on the other stuff after the show. :-)
twl OP
3,251 posts
 
KAB is a pretty cool site. That fluid damper rig looks like it will work fine, and it looks real "factory" like. Very clean and professional. It seems to me that they are primarily promoting a vertical damping, but it appears from the photo that the paddle can be rotated to provide a lateral damping effect. I expect that this will make an improvement in sound quality on your 1200. Let us know. I am sending a set of these weights to Nrchy tomorrow, so we can get some feedback on how they work on his Sota/RB900 system. He's got a Benz Glider with a 15cu compliance, so we'll see how this works with a medium compliance cartridge on a Rega arm.
zaikesman
3,017 posts
 
You know, it's been so long since I took a look at the KAB site, I guess I forgot which plane the damping operates in. Considering that the grooves are actually cut at a 45 degree angle, I would suppose that a little of both horizontal and vertical damping would be a good idea (which ties in well with my idealized theoretical above). I'll make a point of asking Kevin at KAB about this aspect.

As far as the threshold hypothesis goes, I can't agree with your analogy about lifting a weight. Weight is not the issue here, mass is. If the weight you couldn't lift was floating in space, and you attempted to push it away from you, you would move both move in opposite directions, according to your respective masses. In theory, when you or I jump up in the air, our push-off sends Earth moving infitesimally in the other direction; there is no real threshold - a practical one, yes, but no absolute one. Or to put another spin (sorry again) on it, if the arm was really so massive that the cantilever's suspension couldn't overcome its mass to move it when transcribing a groove modulation, then it also couldn't move it across the record as it played - the suspension would just keep deflecting until something gave way. If a force applied at the stylus can move the arm at all, then it can move the arm period.
basement
245 posts
 
TWL, I think we are having some misinterpritations here, but when we are speculating, as I am, that will often be the case.
I agree with you on all your reasons and speculations behind your mod. I also find them highly intelligent and insightful. I also understand that you are looking for superior tracking. I get the idea that you think that I was implying you weren't. I think that our separation in understanding is in the flexing of the cantilever and the speed that I am refering to. Or, if you will, the offset from perfectly center that is encountered in the circumstances of cantilever flexing.
The speed I am refering to is the warp/wow frequency and the lowest bass frequency. The amount of movement I am refering to are very, very slight. At the level of evan a fraction of a cantilever width. I am not trying to imply that because I can see it, that it exist, or that it doesn't exist if I can't, I use my eyes as an aid. The cartridge I am using is a clavis d.c., and as you know, the arms are an older model immedia and a rb-300. I do observe movement in both, but I don't consider it unusual movement or out of spec. Just to be clear on what I use my eyes for, if I see movement, I use that for a clue, or try to find clues by looking for movement, and then I attempt to identify what I am seeing by checking the set-up and listening.
When the complience and mass of an arm are considered matched, the resonent frequency is suppossed to be between the warp/wow frequency and the lowest bass frequency, I beleive that is 5-10 khz's. THAT is the movement I am refering to. This happens as the cantilever is moving to track the record, which is determined by the mass and complience of the set-up. How much it moves and how fast it moves are two different things, I leave it open for debate as to how much, as I don't know. I know that in most proper set-ups, there is movement, and that it is desired by traditional thinking to minimize it. (I'm still refering to the amount of movement, not the frequency).
While I suggest that your canilever is moving, I am not saying that it is mistracking-the contrary. I have to suggest that it is moving more than it was because by adding weight to a given application and changing nothing else there should be more movement in the cantilever, and that is based on having the arm remain more static than it was. I don't mean to imply that it is more static than it should be, or that there is more deflection than there should be, but I do contend that at the extreme of such an experiment that there will. I am forced to consider, however, that if you increased the amount of movement but changed the other parameters, such as the frequency, or other things that I am not aware, that superior results are/were gained from your experiment at the expence of greater movement at the cantilever. Please don't take that as me saying that you are ignoring movement there, Or that you are not looking to minimize it, or that you shouldn't, but if you don't consider what movement is taking place, or what could take place, then I don't think we can be able to asses the differences that are taking place.
The way I see this, is that adding mass of that amount in the horizontal plane is unconventional thinking, evan as the theory and evidence for it may be sound. I also believe that your assessment of the improvements in sound are true, as I would say from what I have learned from you I would have to guess you are quite competent in that area. All of the evidence that I keep learning as I explore this is leading to this not only being the case, but is causing me to have to stretch in my understanding of tonearms. So I might stretch your theories.
twl OP
3,251 posts
 
Basement, first, if you would like a set of these weights for your RB300, email me. They should make an improvment on the Clavis. That is not a "whippy" cartridge, and the cantilver/suspension should be quite stiff. These weights are easy to apply, and stay put, in just the right place. I really would like your feedback on this.

Next, I think I am beginning to understand what you are saying. One thing that needs clarification is your term "cantilever flexing". Is the cantilever actually flexing, or is it just moving in its rubber suspension? This is an important difference. The cantilever itself is a stiff tube, and should not flex. Flexing loses information, and imparts an unwanted resonance in the system. If the movement you refer to is small, and near the center, then it is actually suspension movement you are seeing. Flex, if it does occur, would only happen at the end of suspension travel.

If I understand you correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are concerned with the very low frequencies that may be caused by warp/wow in the range below 10Hz. You feel that if the cartridge is actually tracking these frequencies, that it may be detrimental to the system, and the cantilever especially. This is because you feel that the large movements that occur at this range may bend or break the cantilever, and these frequencies should be prevented from entering the system anyway. Right? And your concern leads you to believe that the arm should move laterally at these frequencies to relieve the sidewards stress on the cantilever, and to preclude these frequencies from entering the signal chain. Right? Tell me if I understand this the way you mean it.

Now, going on the assumption that I understand correctly, you are actually referring to the matchup of the lateral effective mass/cartridge compliance. If it is minor warp or off center problems, yes the arm should move laterally on the bearing to account for these eccentricities. These problems are slow dynamics compared to the rapid lateral accellerations of the stylus during tracking of low frequency playback dynamics. An object has much more resistance to movement when a rapid accelleration is applied, than when a slow push is applied(Force=Mass x Acceleration). The slow movement of the record groove during warps and off center travel is easily handled by the arm bearing, and the arm moves laterally quite easily in this circumstance. If you are saying that the warp/off center record is causing a quick massive 1/4" or more movement that causes the weight of the arm to stay in place, and makes the cantilever move dramatically sideways because the record movement is too fast for the arm to keep up with it, then that record is a Frisbee, not a record.

My theory on this issue is this. The transducer should respond all the way down to DC. All frequencies begin at DC at the beginning of the attack, and quickly rise to the fundamental tone, and then decay back down to DC again. This is the structure of all notes. If we avoid the reproduction of the lowest octave, then we change the structure of the note, as we hear it. Even if the rest of the system cannot reproduce this, it has its effect on the sound. It is an attack, sustain, decay, timing issue. The resonant frequencies in the cartridge/tonearm cannot be avoided, but can be tuned out of the most offensive areas.

So, IMO to purposely allow the tonearm to move laterally at these frequencies, for the purpose of avoiding their reproduction, as a preventative of cantilever stress, is a counterproductive measure. It is my view that all frequencies from DC and up, should be included in the information chain of the source transducer, regardless if the other elements in the signal chain can reproduce them or not. If not, the natural structure of the tones, and the PRaT will suffer.

So, to sum up on this subject, I feel that the cantilever should be subjected to all these forces, but should remain in its properly centered relationship with the groove at all times, if possible. This may not be entirely possible, but it is a goal that we should try to attain with the improvements we are considering.

If the record is defective or warp damaged to the point of causing extraneous peaks in the frequency response at very low frequencies,or causing undue stress to the cantilever, that is a problem with the record, not the playback system. The playback system should track all the information on the record, if we are to even hope to get the best reproduction.

Regarding my unconventional thinking, it may be somewhat unconventional, but it is not original, or new. Others, such as Dynavector have addressed this directly, with an entire design(the 505-507 series) with this idea as the goal. And Graham, as well as other unipivot makers are using some form of this also. The Transcriptors Vestigal arm, addressed inertia and had 35 times more lateral inertia than vertical inertia. And the Vestigal was made in the 70's.

Hopefully, I have understood your idea, and have addressed some of the points you raised. If not, please re-explain, and I will try again.
More to discover