Geometry for pivot tonearms - calculation errors??


During several threads in Audiogon's Analog forum the question of pivot tonearm geometry was discussed widely and wildly the past weeks. There seems to be a great confusion about the interelation - and interaction - between overhang, offset, effective length, mounting distance and the position of the 2 zero-error points on the arc over the LP's grooved area.
However - the correct tonearm geometry is paramount for the performance of any analog sourced High-end system.

Do we need a new calculation of these parameters?
Is mounting distance a variable factor in a given pivot tonearms geometry?
Can overhang serve as the fixed parameter for a pivot tonearm?
Is effective length a variable or a fixed parameter in pivot tonearm geometry?
Is there anything like an optimum geometry for a given cartridge/pivot tonearm set-up?

I invite all interested in this complex and very important topic to contribute their thoughts. If possible please do include the geometrical derivation for any given theory and opinion.
This might be difficult in some examples, but please try.
By doing so, - this will keep this thread on terms and will make it more valueable for all.
dertonarm
Dear Axel: I mounted my 97Xe ( a small brother of the V15 ) in the IV and works fine so I don't see any trouble with your combination.

I don't like to speak about devices that already own a person but I can't stay " quiet " . This next thoughts/experiences are in the animus to help about:

I owned the V15MR that I try in different tonearms/headshells and with different load impedance values and in my system I never achieve " stellar " or near it quality performance even the 97Xe like me more and that's why I still have it.

If you or any other person wants to " introduce " in the MM high-end " stage " the V15 IMHO is not the right answer if we want to compare against a top LOMC like the one you own.
.
My advise is to go for one of the next cartridges ( either ): Nagaoka MP-50 or better yet the MP-50 Super, Ortofon M20FL Super, Audio technica ATML180 OCC and/or Signet TK 10MLII.

Anyone of you could be " shocked " with the quality performance on these MM cartridges. Can/could beat a top LOMC ones?, I know the answer but the best judge are you.

Those cartridges are only the tip of the MM iceberg.

Normaly these MM cartridges perform better with a load impedance over 70K and total capacitance below 200pf and are so " inexpensive " that we can own dozens.

No, I'm not saying or implying in anyway that instead of our beloved LOMC ones: no, the MM is another very good " flavored " source.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.
Dear Axel, dear Raul, - I am very familiar with teh AT-180 ML and I want to support Raul's recommendation of thsi particular cartridge. It is outstanding - a very serious contender for most of the $1k to $3k of todays high-flight MCs.
It should work very good in the SME V as should its bigger brothers from AT - why?
Because all AT-cartridges do very precisely hold on to the standards (as do all Ortofons...)in stylus to mounting hole distance and therefor will support the fixed alignment of the SME V.

But - can we discuss the SME V in particular in an individual thread??

Hey Axel - how about starting a thread about the special situation of the SME V in terms of its geometry and design?

I am sure this will get much attention as the SME V is widely owned and I will gladly support it.
Hi,
I'll think about it. I'd say it sounds the right idea.
Also, I don't want to 'twist' this thread into the wrong direction.
Thanks for the suggestions.
Greetings,
Axel
Dear all, The separation in 'Tonearm Geometry' and 'Setup
Geometry' as proposed by our 'new authority' in tonearm
matter, Herr Dertonarm (sorry Raul) is the subject-matter
of one article in Audio,January 1980. The authors Kessler
and Pisha ware very suprised to discover that the most
Japanese tonearms producer got the 'arm geometry' wrong
(the 'beloved' FR-64 included). Suprised because the so
called ' optimal geometry' was know since,at least,1941.
The math. was my worst subject at school and I am realy
'annoyed' to be confronted with difficult 'formulae' in
my hobby. BTW the '1mm unit' is to me the smallest I can see and handle so I have no idea how to get my stylus 'spot
on' at 66,04 mm and 120,9 mm respectively.
Herr Dertonarm is 'threaten' us with the 'fractions' of
the 'unit' mentioned and call himself a Humanist. To me
he is a direct descendant of Frege (alias 'Perfectionist').
If we intend to get this 'perfect Geometry' in reality
then the chance to end in an psychitric instition is much
much larger then to get this 'TT-tonearm-stylus' conundrum
in correspondance with the 'demands' as stated by this
German perfectionist.

Regards and enjoy the music (if you can)
Dear Nandric, many quote marks indeed........
I am constantly puzzled how many people do react so anoyed if they are confronted with the pursuit for perfection in technical parameters.
As for the FR-64s I have already made enough comments and already gave the correct and optimzed mounting distance.
Anyone NOT interested in getting the tonearm/stylus geometry as close to perfection as possible has a very good option:

in 1982 the - soon to be history again - audio CD was invented.

This was made for all those countless numbers of music connaisseurs whose smallest unit is the 1mm (which is several hundered times larger than the polished contact area of your stylus).

If you try (try....) to get the perfect geometry, you will not end in the asylum, but maybe end up with no distortion in analog playback and just the sonic results the audio press always promised you.

Leave it to try-and-error is certainly not the way to align a mechanical device.

But - sorry to have created pains in your old wounds with math (also I do not really recall having given any formulas regarding tonearm geometry - I was just displaying geometrical aspects.

BTW - Kessler and Pisha weren't all that correct in their article either and had relativeted most of their "findings" in later years.