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
TWL: I brought this up before in my post of 8/31/03 (gad, has it really been that long? Where does the time go?!), but I will ask again since you mention it now: Why exactly must the mass be equally distributed on both sides of the (virtual) pivot point with a gimbal 'arm?
Zaikesman, because if it is not, it will cause the tonearm to have a lateral force applied in the direction of the heavier weight, like an anti-skating adjustment. I have read arguments from others that this is impossible and physics dictate that it is impossible. I counter that argument by having done experiments that show it is not only possible, but predictable. I have done leveling and every other precaution, but it happens. One person who bought the mod got so anxious to listen that he tried to play with only one weight installed, and the tonearm skated all the way across the record from just a slight bump! So, no matter what some may say in theory, in practice this is an issue that must be dealt with. Perhaps it is simply because ideal theoretical conditions cannot be met in practice, in this application, and the bearings are smooth enough to allow the drift. Small variation of unequal weight may be dealt with by adjustment of the anti-skate mechanism on the tonearm. Whatever the reason, it is important to have a reasonably close match of the weights that are used for this purpose. I'm not saying that it is necessary to take this down to the 1/10000 of a gram, or anything. Just make them pretty close, and that should do it. When I make them, I just eyeball them for the same length, and use weights from the same package that were pre-weighed before I cut the depressions in the ends. That has been close enough for all my previous work. Also, it should be noted that the length is important, because the force applied increases by the square of the distance from the pivot. Since this is a geometrical increase, the length of the weight(which creates the distance of the center of mass of that weight from the pivot) is pretty important also. I made the weights about an inch long, because I am using that geometrical force increaser to assist the desired effect, while keeping the actual mass that I'm using to a minimum for the application required.
Interesting. It does seem somewhat counterintuitive (in the case of a gimbal 'arm only). Obviously, the situation cannot be totally analogous to an anti-skate hanging weight arrangement, since in that case the connecting piece of line and bracket over which it hangs work together to apply the gravitational force in a lateral vector. Your experiments seem persuasive though, so it would be educational to find out the reason for the observed behavior. I would suppose that to someone with the requisite knowledge of basic dynamics and the fundamentals of the application at hand, this would be a "D'oh!" question, but judging by your own uncertainty, and the certainty of some of your (presumably well-versed) correspondents apparently being at odds with experimentation, perhaps not. As I mentioned above, I don't think that an S-shaped 'arm (such as my own 1200) would be statically balanced in its lateral mass distribution, and the argument could be made that uneven mass distributions as seemingly innocuous as headshell offset or a headshell finger-rest, operating at the distance from the pivot point which they are, should then be almost as disruptive even on a straight 'arm (or could those two factors cancel each other out?). As far as the TT leveling necessity goes, this is of course true anyway - extra weights or no - since the unbalanced (due to the applied VTF) mass of the 'arm/cart is always in play.
Zaikesman, I believe I can explain this phenomena, and it is interesting because it relates to the effectiveness of this mod.
You are correct in your visualization in that in a pivoted arm, movement is restricted because of the fixed position of the bearings, and wieght placement will not alter what the bearings allow, but it can, and does, shift the forces on the bearings and the amount, and this affects the direction of the forces and the resistance to force.
picture a straight rod with a pivot in the center and equal wieghts on each end. if you bend the rod at the center so that one side is down and the other is level, the other side will then wnat to come down as well, evan though you haven't changed the weight on each side of the pivot. now picture the same straight rod with a lot of weight on one end. the location of the pivot has to change to make them balance.
now flip this stuff sideways and consider the pull of the cartridge on the pivot of a tonearm. to shift the mass in relation to the pivot will shift the force on the pivot, just as changing the location of the pivot change the balance of the arm. in the case of the lateral force, or the anti skate, it would shift to one side of the bearing.
if you were to remove the arm from the table and hold the arm so it hangs toward the floor, it would not hang straight down if you had more weight on one side than the other.
with the arm on the turntable, there is no force on the bearing until the record spins and pulls the stylas away from the pivot. with a change in wieght distribution, you change the amount of force required to pull the cartridge from one side to the other. the nature of the hifi mod is to increase the lateral mass as to increase the resistance to sideways movement. to add a weight on only one side will still increase resistance in both directions, but will increase it more in one direction than the other.
I'll jump in here for a sec. to add that I've used Twl's "HI-FI" tweak on a vintage Empire 598 table w/ 598 tonearm, employing a heavier and longer lateral weight on the "right" or outside of the arm yoke to generate anti-skate (the inside weight is quite small). It doesn't take much in the way of high-tech testing to verify the outcome of setting my arm up this way. All one has to do is closely eyeball the cantilever as it touches down on spinning vinyl: without the offset HI-FI tweak the arm "wants" to move "in" towards the platter spindle and the cantilever bends "outward" away from the spindle in response; with the tweak installed the cantilever remains straight upon touching spinning vinyl, and remains so. My vintage arm used an A/S spring tucked inside the yoke that created resonance issues, now gone entirely since I chucked the spring and discovered the A/S effect with help from Twl. A while back I engaged a lengthy argument on the Vinyl Asylum regarding such A/S effect and it turned ugly, personal and stupid; the gist of it was "me" saying "it actually works!" and "them" saying "but it's not physically/mathematically possible...so you're an idiot, etc." No more arguing for me - it flat works. It "has" to work, in the sense that the fact of the A/S effect only validates the basic concept of the *concentric* HI-FI tweak...beneficial effect of which has now been verified via user reportage again and again. Personally, I think it's just about the coolest thing I've learned since taking an interest in vinyl. BTW, I fiddled with the left-right balance (length and weight) of the offset HI-FI tweak by ear, the aim being to get a centered stereo image.