Tracking error distortion audibility

Hi Feathed,

I'm sure any competent person would not make the errors you cite above

Well, that leaves the other possibility - that they are misinformed. It's no crime, and I surely have a lot to learn as well as the next fellow. Frankly, this is one reason I post on this forum. No one can know everything, and collectively, we are all better for the exchange.

OK, I'll do some work for you and for Brooks. Based on the Ellison spreadsheet, here are the distortion numbers for 239mm and 243 effective lengths:

Effective length = 239mm:

at 57mm = 1.16%
at 146mm = .62%

Effective length = 243mm:

at 57mm = 1.14%
at 146mm = .61%

As far as references are concerned, I primarily use the two appendages on the side of my head along with all of the other individuals who,like myself thought that years of working with two point protractors yielded as good results as you could reasonably expect to achieve. I don't know of a single individual in my listening circle who still has this opinion.

I'm going to be in So. Cal in a couple of weeks' time, and had planned on visiting Brooks. This thread gives me one more topic of conversation. Brooks is someone I've admired for quite some time. If indeed your memory of your conversation with him is accurate, then I'll take the opportunity to set him straight.

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Dear Feathed: +++++ " It's so simple I just assumed everyone did this. " +++++

everyone that wants to change the effective tonearm length.

+++++ " You get the exact equivalent of a longer effective length tonearm. " +++++++

and a " little " different performance.

IMHO the designer tonearm voicing was taking in count that spindle to pivot spec along the overhang and " original " effective length.

How do you know what the tonearm designer intented through its original specs? IMHO it is not only the geometry tonearm parameters what define the tonearm performance. Nothing is perfect and has trade-offs: how do you know which trade-offs choose the tonearm designer?.

You can change those parameters but like I told you the performance will be different.
So, IMHO that spindle to pivot spec is still useful and necessary.

There are times where is important to preserv/guard a little respect for the designers.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Thom,
Your longer effective length calulations show lower distortion and there is NO downside. You just proved the point. You claim to respect Brooks and you don't know everything yet you will
"set him straight".

Raul,
Not mounting a cartridge exactly where a manufacturer's direction say is not disrespecting the designer at all. The arm manufacturer has to allow for inaccurate drilling of the mounting board and has to accommodate all possible cartridges. I bet all designers would applaud taking the effort to tweak the most performance out of their arm. I'm not insisting anyone has to do this. You, like the manufacturer may want to drill in the middle of the range in case of a slight error during the drilling or in case you later wish to sell the table to someone with a very odd cartridge. I very much doubt the increase in length will make a significant improvement but why not optimized all you can?

Feathed,

Your longer effective length calulations show lower distortion and there is NO downside. You just proved the point. You claim to respect Brooks and you don't know everything yet you will "set him straight".

.02% (that's .0002) is not audible, and even if it had some marginal effect, all other variables need to be taken into account in order to understand the cost (if any) of this small gain. One needs to remember that this is a sub-system and not a single isolated parameter.

As Raul correctly points out, all design and implementation parameters of a cartridge/tonearm sub-system are interrelated with each other. I pointed out one potential downside to extending the cartridge to the very front of the headshell in my point (b) above - the possibility of compromising headshell/cartridge interface.

Because I respect Brooks does not mean that he is any more infallible than I am. I walked a fine line in my comment, and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you understood Brooks when I wrote: "If indeed your memory of your conversation with him is accurate, then I'll take the opportunity to set him straight."

Can you help me understand why I should believe that you are accurately conveying Brooks' explanation any better than you are assimilating Raul's and my comments?

Thom @ Galibier