Tonearm without off-set

William-

With apparently the same logic that you've used for your arm concept, you've missed my point. Comparing your odd tonearm strategy to someone's expensive stereo gear means nothing-it's like buying a Ferrari because you need a new toaster.

I'm trying to find the reason for your query both here and at VA. You ask if a straight, no-offset pivoting arm is "a good idea". It ain't-and you're unlikely to find anyone who will tell you that it is. And yet you're determined to proceed. Thus, I can only conclude that you're not really seeking any knowledge on the subject, you're either looking for a validation, which won't be forthcoming, or...well, I don't know, you just need something to do, I guess.

I'll change my tune if you can show me the math that will allow a straight, no-offset pivoting arm to have tracking error and distortion equal to or less than an arm with offset, and aligned with a Baerwald or Lofgren formula. Until then, feel free to ruin your records any way you choose, but don't expect me to support your ill-fated dream.

Johnbrown

"but don't expect me to support your ill-fated dream."

None was asked for. It is just a bloody arm that we are discussing. I do not understand why you are so worked up about this. You want to kick my dog or something?

And regarding "math (sic)" logic, so how come some highly regarded contributors here removed their anti skate devise on their ET tone arm and not use them? There is no maths in that.

Some of us actually use our ears to determine what Maths can't explain.

Also if we are so dogmatic about perfect tangential alignment, we should never ever use any pivoted arm - off set or not. How much distortion is acceptable or discernible? Choosing by numbers is a worry when it comes to sound.

And in your opinion, it seems that the only criteria for a tone arm to sound good is to have perfect tangential alignment. There are other factors that can make a tone arm great sounding. And if you do not know already, all tone arms sound different regardless of perfect geometry or not.

Anyway, I respect your opinion and let's just say that you do not agree with me on this topic and perhaps many more.

Nice talking to you.

What Doug and Raul said ...

Look up the numbers on John Ellison's gift to analog-kind - his Baerwaald / Loefgren spreadsheet on the "Free Stuff" section of the Enjoy the Music website. This is Frank Schroeder's and my bible.

If you have trouble finding it, go to my Support Page, where I maintain a link to that section of the Enjoy the Music site.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Hi William62,

One more thing ...

Removing the offset angle still leaves you with the decision as to whether to create overhang, underhang, or neither. You still need to arrive at an alignment strategy that minimizes tracing distortion for your chosen path (e.g. offset angle = 0).

While skating forces are very real, they are secondary to minimizing tracing distortion, and this is the genesis of the posts advising you to go by the numbers.

The math developed by Baerwaald, Loefgren, Stevenson, et. al. were all exercises in optimizing tracing distortion over various parts of the LP.

I have to admit that I've played only minimally with Loefgren, but my experiments with the Baerwaald Mint LP protractor (after being a two point protractor user for eons) was a revelation to me, Doug and countless others.

Now, strictly speaking, slapping a cartridge on a tonearm and randomly mounting it is an "alignment" and we can give it a name if we choose ("Joe the alignment").

After hearing the difference between "almost Baerwaald" (as in attempting it with a two point protractor) and an accurate Baerwaald (Mint LP arc protractor), I've gained more respect for the math developed by him.

Having said that, knock your socks off and have some fun. Why don't you make concentric, crescent shaped slots in your headshell that will allow pivot the cartridge from 0 degrees offset to the Baerwaald recommended number for your effective length? Then, you can prove this to your own satisfaction and report your findings.

Enjoy the journey,
Thom @ Galibier

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Thanks Thom. I really enjoyed reading all your posts in AG.

Over the years I have owned or still own: Grace 707, Lenco, LE1, PU2, Alphason HRS100, Rega RB250, Well Tempered, PU3 and Aro. So I am not new to pivoted off-set arms or has anything against them.

You are absolutely right that tangential alignment accuracy is very important. I can hear the difference you mentioned. I even slotted my Aro head shell which only had two holes so that I get it perfect.

The thing that most interest me in trying non off-set straight arm (which is only one of the 3 arms that I am intending to use in my system), is the fact that the cantilever will not be subjected to inward force (or even stress) created by off-set arms. What I am interested to know is how much more we can gain from a cartridge when there is no inward force caused by off-set arms.

Perfect tangential alignment aside, there must be benefits from having a "less" stressed cantilever.

I am now almost certain to have a 12inch arm with both off-set and non off-set straight arm wands. Both will be exactly the same except for the head-shell geometry. (So Johnbrown, I do actually listen to other people's opinion.) I will report my findings if there is any interest on this topic.

It really surprised me that I did not get any response from people who have tried or taken this path before. I was really hoping to hear from someone with actual listening experience of a non off-set arms. They have been manufactured before and I am sure there are some still in service out there.

The RSA-1 has somewhat of a cult following for those who do not mind fiddly toys. This arm has no offset and the tangential alignment is way off, but it is acknowledged by some to be a great tracker with very low distortion (soundwise). I will also be getting one of this to see what the buzz is all about.

Don't know if what I am intending to do will be any good, but I am certainly going to enjoy the experience.

Later.