Tonearm recommendation

Dear friends: Please think a little on this:

For years analog audiophiles expressed that: digital experiences sounds/performs " lifeless " ( overall. ) against the analog experience.

Why is that?::what are we missing in the digital alternative?:

well, we are missing several " things ". In no order we are missing: two eq. RIAA processes, at least 3-4 amplification processes ( with multiple parts on each one, at least two input/output connector and the IC cables ( 1.0’-1.5 m. and soldered joints, fragility of the audio signal more prone to be contaminated for air electromagnetic pollution, we are missing the TT, cartridge, tonearm and the like, the LP anomalies and friction and cartridge " problems " to the LP ridding, effect of the SPL from the speakers through the analog rig, etc, etc.

In all of what we are mising the audio signal has to pass through and at each of those single steps that signal is heavy degraded and " walking " on with accumulation of all kind of distortions and that’s only part of what happens on LP playback but there are other " things " we are missing on the recording process too.

So what we are missing is just DISTORTIONS. That many of us like those distortions is not the subject and it can’t does nothing to help on all those signal degrading distortions that we have not in the digital alternative.

We are not accustom to purer audio signal and that’s why we don’t feel good when listening to it. All our audio life we are listening to more distortions than pure music information so our reaction is against the sound that has a lot lower distortions and we have not to be scientist to understand that, just common sense as I posted " over and over " in this thread.

That's wy we have to " overdamp " that signal at each system audio link.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R..

Dear ninetynine: Certainly I don't care of your " teacher ". In the other side, because seems to me that you agree with that " teacher " please tell me where and why losted I the " point "? and which is your point?

Thank's in advance.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear lewm: No it’s not but in this thread some gentlemans like more the additional distortions generated in a non-damped tonearm ot that one That I refereing who posted that the vaccum hold down LP ) after market item suck out the music life and here some one else posted almost the same and the digital alternative is a good example of what we don’t like when something is " overdamped " because is " life less, suck out the music life or something like that ".

It’s clear to me that almost all want to listen not what is in the LP grooves modulations but all the system generated distortions and as greater the best ( for some. ).

"""" But the digital process, both A to D and D to A, brings with it its own set of distortions, ones that apparently are far more noticeable and irritating to the human brain .... """

yes, nothing is perfect but certainly digital has more music information with lower lot lower distortions because what some of you don’t like are lower distortions than what you are accustom to.

Please read again my post and you will " see " " thousands and thousands " of added distortions in the LP experience that does not exist in the digital one. This is a fact.

ct/chris posted a first hand experience between the master tape and the LP same traks and he listening " huge " bass distortions in the LP experience that does not exist in the R2R master tape. Even that all my posts detractors don´t take in count, maybe all they think that can " close " the sun with their finger even that all they know that they can’t.

Now, with the today digital alternative comes a purer music information with lower lower distortions than in the LP experience. That we like it or not is another matter and a confirmation that almost all likes higher distortions and that’s why we don’t like digital alternative that I repeat is nearer to its technology advantages as never before.

D to A and A to D is not any more a problem for our brain. Native 32/384 digital technologies has almost no distortions that can ( as years ago ) offend our " ears " and still today improving each single day.

You only have to read all the new digital items around us as: clock’s, iphones, tv’s , tablets, laptops and the like: incredible all the news about and fortunatelly for us that like the music at home all those digital developments migrate and migrated to our music hobby players.

We still can deny the digital alternative but is useless to do it ( there are not arguments to. ) and instead of that what we must do it is enjoying it along the LP one alternative.

This is what mikelavigne posted last november here in agon:

""" now happening is the Debussy solo piano recording by Ilyn Iten from Wave Kinetics Music. this was recorded last May in upstate New York from the same mic feed in 30ips 1/2" tape and Quad dsd. there will be analog tape offered along with 45rpm pressings, and Quad dsd along with 2xdsd, regular dsd, and all manner of PCM too. not sure there will be a PCM based vinyl pressing, but this recording will certainly demonstrate the best of analog verses the best of digital. right now I have a few cuts from the recording in Quad dsd and it is an outstanding recording. """"

I think every one knows who is ML and knows his Agon virtual system, well on that post please re-read this:

""" I have a few cuts from the recording in Quad dsd and it is an outstanding recording ..."""

If you remember my posts more that 4 years ago I said something very similar to what I posted here: that the digital alternative has more music information and less distortions and this statement not only stay but today improved!! and you said that b" modern " digital become very excellent and you are right.

In my self evaluation methodology/process I use some digital tracks because nothing in the LP can tell me what is really happening down there: I need to hear those track with the lower distortions recorded and digital is a champ.

Btw, if any one of you can enjoy the LP experience in your audio system and can’t enjoy it at least at the same level then you have a system big problem and digital does not counts on that and is not the culprit link and no one needs a digital megabucks player to attest what I'm saying technology and 0s and 1s makes that low distortion music!. 

It’s the same when we don’t like a well damped tonearm and we prefer the undamped one: big system problem, that’s all.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear syntax: I stopped for almost 3 years to post/participate in Agon forums and it's incredible ( as people say in my country: " a case for the spider " ) that people like you still are hevy sticky to the same distortions generators proudly showing your very high ignorance level and I said proudly because that's " recorded " through your virtual system.
It's pity that peple like you just do not grow-up and you have to give thank's for that to your audio advisers/sellers that are very happy to take money from you, you are the audio paradise for any audio seller. Nothing wrong with me, go a head: to where? because you just don't move anywhere.

Now, you came to this thread not as a contributor that have something on hand to help and if you want to do it please do it a favor and a favor to all of us and answer this question:

in what way or how your 66 distortion generator item helps for the cartridge can shows it at its best? where belongs its " wonderful " advantages " and which are those advantes and why is that way?

You are or at least think you are an expert and for sure you can give us the ight answers. Thank's in advance for that.

In the other side your you-tube link is the third time you posted on Agon and coming from you has no effect in me. Here too you can go on! and please show here your expertise and enrich the thread.

Friends, I know that this gentleman will not post about but we will see if this time disclose him-self.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear ochremoon:  """  not another boring digital vs analog one! """ ????

That vs exist NO  any more what today exist are two valuable alternatives: digital that's the one that performs nearer to the recording with the lower distortions and the analog one that performs a litle more away from the recording and with higher distortions.


My advise is that if we can then try to enjoy both and I repeat this: if in our system we don't like what we listenen through the digital alternative or what we listen through a well damped tonearm then we have somewhere a heavy system problem and we must to find out where and make the right changes in our beloved home audio system.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear lewm: """  Probably Raul himself did not mean to go there. """

exactly. My post was only like a paragon/example of something with the same effect to explain why we like higher distortions and do not like lower distortions.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear wrm0325: Unipivots? Moerch, Talea, VPI, Graham and some other unipivots are good tonearms. I own some unipivots and tested others too.

Years ago when the Talea appears for the first time somne one started a thread to speaks on that new tonearm and there not only posted many persons but included Agoner's that were beta testers of the tonearm and MR. Durand posted too.
Well I gave my point of view about unipivot tonearm designs and all its drawbacks/disadvantages, against non-unipivot tonearm designs like Triplanar or any other pivoted one, that does not really helps for the cartridge can shows at its best. I don'ty want to repeat what I posted there where I invited to the designer to put some light on what I posted but unfortunatelly he did not and stay in silence.

What is the first cartridge critical neccesity that asks to a tonearm: STABILITY with CERO TOLERANCE for the cartridge can ride " freely " the LP grooves modulations. That STABILITY reside/belongs primary in the tonearm bearing design  that not only must has low friction but totally tight with no loose anywhere in that bearing design.

By " nature " unipivot is an unstable design and we can't change it it does not matters what unipivot designers do about ( at least till today. ) and that unstability is reflected at micro levels when the cartridge is ridding the LP. We have to think in that huge demands that represent all the generated forces down the stylus and grooves modulations when cartridge is in the trackibg motion and those huge  ( every type of forces and its feedback ) forces and tracking must be controled by the tonearm bearing and it's not posible yet for a unipivot to achieve this main and critical cartridge/tonearm targets.

I'm not saying that unipivots are bad because sounds good but as everything that sounds good has different quality gradding and certainly unipivots are not at the top of that grading because that unstability only is in favor to help to generate  additional  distortions and " push " the cartridge tracking abilities against it when must be the other side around: to help to that LP ridding.

Every one thinks that unipivots has very low bearing friction when in reality is not in that way because all the tonearm/cartridge weight/mass is concentrated at only one point that not only means not low pivot friction but that everything  and everykind of distortions and feedback goes through that single point doing things worst that in a non-unipivot tonearm design and instead to help de cartridge goes " against it ". 

The Technics EPA 100 has the lower bearing friction of any pivoted tonearm I know, it's only 4mg even well regarded non-unipivot tonearm designs are much much higher as is the Dynavector 505/507 MK2: 50mg!, yes you read it well: 50 vs 4mg. Unipivots can't compare in this regards with the EPA 100 and obviously has not all itys advantages.

I own two top of the line Grace tonearms, one unipivot and thwe other with gimball bearing design. I made several tests where everything the same: cartridge, tonearm wires, IC cables, etc. the gimball always performs with better quality level.

Unipivots are knows for its fast, open and transparent type of sound but those are the transparency or " alive " that some us are accustom to: higher distortions and that's all.


I totally agree with atmasphere because at least in that regards that's my experiences with each single unipivot tonearm and I know that in the Kairos just can't be in other way because the tonearm bearing has the same unipivot principle:


"""  The Talea was very sweet but simply lacked the bass impact. No amount of adjustment brought it out.  """



That the Kairos likes more to folkfreak than the Triplanar does not change in any way the premises posted here. Triplanar is more faithful to the real music information with better definition and lower distortions on  the fundamental and harmonics frequencies and bass range and more important: RIGHT bass range reproduction is not only the foundation of  the home musioc sytem performance but what gives the exactkly and precise frame to all the frequency range.

I don't posted about to open a new window in this thread is and was only to share my experiences and of course that I can be wrong but if I'm you I mantain some distance from the unipivots if I want to obtain the best of my cartridges.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

fleib: Unipivots works during playing in continuous desequilibrium, its bearing damping is not to really damp the whole tonearm but, mainly, trying to put at minimum that unstability during playing and that’s all.

What is your " sientist " relationship between that high inertia and high tonearm bearing friction in that tonearm design?

I own the 505 and I bougth it because I like it that design and looks " diferent " but the reality is that cartridge after cartridge, with diferents headshells and using Stevenson, L/B set up geometries I never achieved in no one of those top cartridges what those cartridges shows me in other tonearms and not only because is not a well damped tonearm, high bearing friction too but that high very high mass that looks the cartridge when it’s ridding the LP surface. I like the tonearm but not its overall performance, it does not really helps to the cartridge task.

It does not matters your " scientist " opinion unipivots are unstable during playback and till today no one can change it yet.

What did it some tonearm manufacturers to " hide " in some ways that critical stability problem?: choose better tonearm build materials as VPI and Duran gone with is blend material choice to damp in better way everykind of distortions but unstability is there does not disappears.

One point dissipate better that 2-3 way street: your opinion, not mine.

I remember carefully when appeared for the very first time the tip-toes by ( I think ) Mod Squad that works exactly as the unipivot bearing. All the high end community jump of hapiness and maybe there were no single audiophile that did not use it.
The tip-toes were designed to dissipate vibrations and convert it on other kind of energy and for the electronics or TT been stables with the 3 point configuration instead 4 footers.

I bought several sets of those tip toes and learned through many years that in reality are not in favor to " eliminate " those generated distortions but in some way amplify it or changed in other that still does harm the quality reproduction and because the feedback of those " vibrations " that pass trhough those tip toes never disappear the problem, are very uneffective but thank’s to tip toes todays we have all those and diferent kind of footers/dampers to use it in almost all our system links.

You can test in easy way what I’m saying ( and you don’t have to be a scientistific that certainly you are not. ). Take 3 tip toes and put under your CD player or TT or preamp or even your amps and see what happen against the damping " tools " you are using today and what you experienced is exactly what happen with unipivots on that regards. Additional the unipivots has that unstability " problem ".

Fleib " I’m inocent till the prosecutor can prove I’m guilty ". It’s not me who must prove anything. I made and make my posts and if you disagree with then you have to prove " I’m guilty " and certainly till now you showed and proved nothing at all.

Btw, do you know why you can’t do it and never will?.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear asvjerry: Nothing is perfect. Tangential, unipivots and pivoted non-unipivot tonearms designs has its own trade offs.

In theory tangential tonearms must be the best alternative but as always in audio when that theory goes to reality during playing that theory can't be confirmed because unfortunatelly the analog experience is way imperfect and theory comes and has foundation on perfect world.

That's why no single tangential arm I heard it can gives us the right bass range with the definition, precision, tightness and transparency that a well damped non-unipivot pivoted tonearm shows us.

As  I said the name of the game are those trade offs with tonearms designs and whcigh of those trade offs do lees harm to the cartridge needs for it performs at its best.

I'm for the well damped pivot tonearms and from this kind of design my choice is for the non unipivots.

The real and main subject here is: which are on each one of us the prefered trade offs?, sounds easy but way hard task we have.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear ct0517: Yes I said that and I’m still with: the ET is an Icon in the audio history.

My first tangential arm was the Dennesen ( that unfortunatelly I sold it. ) followed by the Southern and then the ET and after that I listen several tangential arms like the Rockport, Walker and Kuzma.

Nothing is perfect, tangential arms makes verty especial kind of sound from mid bass and up that for some of us could make the difference.
I was with my ET till its ET 2 version and then sold and from all my experiences with this kind of arm design the one that I " keep " it is the ET but I like a little more the overall quality performance of a well designed and a well excuted design on pivot tonearms.

I’m with you in almost all about the ET but things are that my main audio/music priorities are a little different from yours, that’s all.
Seems to me that the fact that the pivoted arms are true grounded to earth ( to arm board and then TT, and then platform and then to floor and and ) instead in the air gives that bass range characteristics I posted that air bearing does not have.

Can I live with the ET tonearm? sure I can as any one else.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear chris: """   Multiple grounds are not a good thing Raul.  """

I don't explained well whar I really want mean:

when I said " grounded " I'm refering a mechanical grounded not electrical. Air bearing tonearm are " floating " and pivot ones are mechanical grounded  and maybe this solid " grounded " bering/surface or whatever is what gives that overall " solidity " to that bass range against a vaccum bearing and I said: " seems to me ", only an opinion.

I use MM and MC cartridges and with my ET 2 90% of the time was with MC ones. Your information about is appreciated.

"""  The erratic pivot arm, armtube behavior with the attached external wire .."""

I respect that Take Five people but I kow they have not real experiences with an external tonearm wire or at least not the right ones.

I try it this for the first time several years ago with my SAEC pivoted tonearms ( 506/8000 ) through the silver Van den Hul wires that gone directly from the cartridge output pins connectors to the phono stage inputs.
After that I tryed with other of my pivoted tonearms and with diferent silver wires including the almost non-existen silver Audio Note that are almost " mechanical resistence cero ".
So, that TF people have to try it again before give that kind of advise

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear fleib: """ A unipivot maintains stability by the distribution of mass and the center of gravity in relation to the pivot. .......... If the center of gravity is too low or high, it will be unstable. """

Weight or no weight during playing stability is not mantained:

a friend of mine that is a scientist and was the director of science area in the principal of México universities and that works for the NASA and today is working somewhere in Asia has three hobbies:
first how the Universe born?, live music and home audio system to listen music.

One day I received a call from he to invite me the Sunday of that week to one of the University science laboratory and that’s the only information he gaves me.
I attend to and he brought his TT with two mounted tonearms ( the one that uses I seen at his home. ) and 3-4 LPs and our meeting main target was to observe through an electronic microscope the cartridge ridding on the LPs at microscopic level ( I only seen that through internet latter on. ), I was really exited to see it for the first time in my life live.
Everything started and through a screen I seen those LP groove modulations in macroscopic way even at normal speed and in low and very low motion.
Both very well regarded tonearms and cartridges ( but diferent in between. ). We were seen it different kind of track modulations including the 1812 overture and was amazing to see what really happen there when the cartridge is " fighting " against those modulations to ridding it.

Well, suddenly I noted/observed that in one of cartridge/tonearm combinations exist a very especial kind of minuscle motions when seen in low motion status through the micro screen and I told to my friend and as a researcher he wanted to " investigate " what could be happening in that combination and over some tests/views that he runned we took in count that those minuscle motions were coming from the tonearm pivot. Then he did it the same tests with the other cartridge combination and had not those minuscle motions. This combination was with a gimball tonearm and the other was an unipivot design.

I don’t took this in count was only an experience and I bought unipivots tonearms additional to the pivoted ones but " today " that " old " experience was and is a learning one.

What produce that to low or high center of gravity in any pivoted tonearm design is that the cartridge could starts to mistracking.


""" The difference between bearing friction and high inertia is in the type of resistance to movement. Effective mass and inertia are the same. """

everyone knows that and as many times happens my meaning was not to ask that


""" Neither the DP8 or 507 II are unipivots. They both use high mass (inertia) in the horizontal plane to optimize tracking and bass response """

I can’t speak for the DP8 but for the 505/507 and I can tell you that the bass response is not up to the quality level in other more " simple " tonearm designs. So, for me is a faulty design, not a bad one because nothing is perfect but maybe you can tell us the 505/507 first hand advantages through your experiences.

Btw, all your posts comes to tell you disagree with my experiences/opinions but with no better solutions to.

The three ( 3 ) questions I did it to you are in stand by by you with no single answer.

Now, please tell us your overall solution to wrm ( op ) and why that solution is better than mine.
Why your solution or solutions meets better the cartridge needs? WHY?

I hope that sometime you can answer about.

If you decide don’t post your answers is useless and futile you go on and on " over " me because you share no real contribution to help.

Good luck.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear ct0517: With all respect, a tonearm designer not necessary is an experienced audiophile. Some are but not all.

The needs on experienced audiophiles are almost the same and many times not easy to express/talk, anyway as me is only another opinions. Btw, neither the Schroede or ET tonearms really makes honor to that bass range. As I said my opinion through experiences with those tonearms.-

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear CT0517: """  He has no reason/agenda, like you Raul ... """""

a huge mistake from your part. Almost all those opinions comes from several many years and today only are confirmedwith better facts/experiences elsewhere.

"""  Are You a True Audiophile ?. Now myself, I can’t post there because I am a part time audiophile, and full time music lover. I don’t qualify sorry.  """

wrong here too because first than all we must be a MUSIC LOVER and be in touch with live music and after that comes that audiophile word and meaning. So your contribution there is not only welcomed but very important too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear cleeds: fabricated?. That's why some of you can't understand or just are against my opinions: because I had and have experiences you don't live yet. Not only that experience but ( example ) : heard in home places systems ( everykind. )  that goes from 35K to 400K+ big bucks with the same Lp tracks. These kind of experiences ( and those owners posted here on Agon about my visit to them. Not a history as you say. ) gives  so many critical information that is an invaluable one and that put light to so many other " roads " to re-think ouir hobby again.

My first advise to any audiophile ( other that attend to listen live music. ) is to listen as many audio system you can listening ( if you can, sometimes we can't do it. ) to the same LP tracks that you know better that your " hands ".

There are no secrets out there only more or less experiences and the positive attitude to learn always, that's all. Keep listening!!!


regards and enjoy the music,
R.

ET still rides in the " air ", right?

R.

Dear ct0517: "" The ET2 can be tweaked to sound like other tonearms. It is a tweakers delight, and this is why so many can go wrong with it. I can make it sound closer to a Fidelity Research 6 series tonearm too. Are you interested to know how to do this ?  """

appreciated but no because I have not any more. Normally when " something " is not up to my audio/music priorities I just leave behind and I don't turn my face to it. If in the future happens something extraordinary with that can tell me is a must to listen again then I will.

Btw, make to performs as the 66?, that's not for me . If I need something is a tonearm that does not performs as the 66, as a fact I still have the 64 that I use it when I have to remember how thigs won't/can't sounds.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear cleeds: You are right that I don’t know " almost " nothing about you but your Agon posts speaks for you.

Now and only for your records: This is only part of some very interesting learni9ng experiences I had with some USA Agoner’s that I visited during my USA trips down there where the more important experience was to meet beautiful/wonderful gentlemans where all of them are very well estableshed/regarded audiophiles ( you can contact all of them just to check. ):

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/our-home-system-how-good-it-is

in that link you can read something of one of my trips and can read what some of those gentlemans posted about.


https://forum.audiogon.com/users/fcrowder

https://forum.audiogon.com/users/albertporter


I was two times with these gentlemans ( Houston and Dallas. ) and in both times with different systems at their home places.


https://forum.audiogon.com/users/vetterone

https://forum.audiogon.com/users/thom_mackris


I meets those gentlemans and other persons in other trip. Tom is the designer and manufacturar of the well regarded Galibier TTs ( Denver. ) and I think I heard there the Schroeder tonearm other than in Austin with mab33.
Vetterone lives in Idaho and owns a great audio system!.


https://forum.audiogon.com/users/sbank

https://forum.audiogon.com/users/dougdeacon

https://forum.audiogon.com/users/slipknot1


with those gentlemans I was in other trip when I was around Philadelphia/Boston are and I meet ther with several audiophiles. Even in PHI we had a meeting with the audio association there where I meet directly too with Mr. Walker because Joe´s system has a Walker TT.


https://forum.audiogon.com/users/pryso

https://forum.audiogon.com/users/ctm_cra

https://forum.audiogon.com/users/elinor


I meet those gentlemans in one of those trips in the San Diego area.


In all those meetings we had a wonderful time talking, listening, enjoying and learning of what we all like. Even we participated in several live comparison/shoot-outs between different kind of audio items and in San Diego we did it in Pryso home ( and other audiophile homes. ) and in the major audio distributor home/office in San Diego where was full of people whom attend to my visit. I hpe that pryso can put some memories of those meetings in San Diego where I was for 4 days ( in one of my trips there. ).
I was too in Atlanta, LA and NY doing the same.

These gentlemans hosted me at their homes, I was tehre at least 2 days at each home with several listening hours with.


I take advantage from this post to again say to all of them ( and many more. ) thank’s for your hospitality, thank’s to gave me the opportunity to know human beens of that/your caliber. All of you very very special people.


Please name it any cartridge, TT, electronics ( tube and SS ) or speakers you know and can be sure I listen down there and many more!!!!


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.
Report thisPost removed Feb 17, 2016

Dear ct/chris: I know what you mean. I already experienced the Kuzma too and things for me does not changes yet.

I be staying with pivoting tonearms, for me that mechanical grounding makes a difference in the more important frequency range in a home audio system: bass range. In the other side seems to me that we need some kind of friction at the tonearm bearing to" fight " in better way against all the LP imperfections: excentricity, waves and the like. Just an opinion.

Air bearing TT are not better on that regards but here there are other variables.

Anyway, you was clear on the subject and I think that for me is enough about tangential tonearms, but that's only me.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear pryso: Thank's for your post. Yes, I have dificult to explain exactly what I'm thinking and with that kind of dificult there are a misunderstood in what I really mean it.

In the other side, I know that my life audio experiences are diferent from other people and mainly because I'm " hyperactive " in the quest of better quality system performance. Post as cleeds one that I posted a hystory/a chine tale or a lier is normal way to think in other people because they don't know me. 

Maybe many agoner's already had not only the kind of experiences I posted of my USA trips but even more wide than that but I had and have " thousands " of especial learning experiences here in México too through at least 6 of the principal audio distributors that are very close friens. Through them I experienced " hundreds " of audio equipment directly in my home: FM Acoustics, Audio Note Kondo, VPI, Levinson, Revel, JL Audio, Air Tight, Krell, Pass, Audio research, Wilson, JM Labs, Cello, Sonus Faber, Esoteric, Dsc, Gryphon, Apogue, Sound Labs, Sota, etc, etc, more and  more.

My way of " audio play " with out no single rules, not to be sticky to anything and " always " thinking in non-ortodox/out of the box way always gave me invaluable learning rewards. I always am asking me: why if I do this or that? and I try it and many times those experiences were lessons of what not do and why. Some things that I learned I learnen by accident, because I made mistakes and through it I learned.


To make take action with  changes in my system I trust is no one but me. I try everything, many of what people post through the net to understand what they mean or if really is right or not.

Other variable that helps a lot in that here in México we don't have extreme excess of money to spend in hobbies, so we have to use a lot of " imagination " to obtain the best quality performance of what we have with the minimum investment.

Again thank's and as you said: go a head with tonearms.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear don_c55: """ what you should know as basis for an arm decision.."""

Seems to me that your 6 premises to choose a tonearm are only your desire and that you want an user friendly tonearm, good.

I don’t see there that the tonearm has to be a good match for the cartridge or cartridges that own the customer that IMHO is critical for a tonearm choice.

What about those tonearms that are very well damped with out external oil damping? are they out to choice it? or the ones that has not fine tracking force with index mark, are out?

There are very good tonearms that are not so user friendly as you want but that are very good performers with wide good match for diferent cartridges, that has very good design and where that design were excecuted with really high quality.

Where do you leave the Kuzma 4P or the Reed P3? are automatic desqualified because are not 100% user friendly?

I can understand your post but I disagree with like chris ( btw, you can be always my guest, will be a pleasure to meet you here. ).

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Lewm: I will do by email.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear don_c55: What in my opinion is a must to have from any tonearm is an user friendly ACCURATE cartridge/tonearm JIG for that set up.

It's ridiculous ( for say the least ) that almost any one of us own not one but several after market jigs/protractors because the one that comes with the tonearm is not ACCURATE or not user friendly.

IMHO, this is the major fault of almost all tonearm manufacturers. If these manufacturers make a good Jig/protractor then no one of us could want any after market device. That JIG is not " rocket science ".

That  tonearm/cartridge JIG is critical and an obligation by the tonearm manufacturers.

That's the " perfect " audio world where we live!.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear don_c55: """"  NO ALIGNMENT WILL SATISFY EVERYONE! """"

I respect your opinion but do not make sense to me.

For me the Stevenson alignment ( that loves japanese audiophiles that for me are way diferent from any other world audiophile. ) today makes no sense too.

Look to these real calculated numbers/values for a 10" tonearm using Baerwald and Lofgreen B alignments:

both cases the cartridge offset angle is the same: 21.586

the difference in cartridge overhang in between is only 0.457 mm

the maximum distortion between null points is:

Baerwald: 0.57%    Lofgreen B:  0.396 almost: 0.4%

average distortion ( all LP recorded surface. ):

Baerwald: 0.38%    Lofgree B:  0.34%


Pleased let me know in which audio system and with which kind of ears any one can detect for sure between a distortion level of:

0.57%  and 0.4%  , that's it a distortion level difference of only: 0.17%!!!!!!!

or that average distortion level difference of: 0.04%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


In the other side, that 0.457mm overhang difference is prety easy and dificult to achieve because non accurate JIGs.

Do you know why  the MINTLP protractor was to famous for 100 bucks?

because was really accurated and is accurate. That people take in count even each owner the TT spindle diameter and everything and send to you a dedicated Baerwald alignment for your tonearm and makes a difference in sound quality not because Baerwald ( if they choosed Lofgreen will be the same results. ) alignment but because for the first time that JIG was and is ACCURATE and when use it the cartridge/tonearm set up is exactly where must be and that's what we audiophiles need from each one tonearm manufacturer. That's where resides the quality sound performance.


If we can hear differences between diferent kind of tonearm /cartridge alignments then it's because the JIG is not accurate, exception perhaps when we make comparison with a " extreme " kind of alignment as Stevenson that certainly is not for me.

We don't have to " fight " looking for the best alignment, Baerwald/Lofgreen are enough for any one, but ACCURATE and user friendly tonearm manufacturer JIGs. Their main responsability.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear ochremoon: Almost there are not tonearm JIGs from manufacturers that be accurate and user friendly because the extremely passive conformity and mediocrity in the audio market by customers and audio reviewers too.

"""  What do you want, a Feikert? Add that to the cost of your arm and complain about that. """

that's the kind of conformity/mediocrity I'm refering to.

For years every kind of after market audio items were and are developed: tonearm JIGs, TT platter mats, TT clamps, fuses, power cords, belts, electrical line conditioners, etc, etc. and we have to remember that every day we pay very high prices for LPs that are in bad conditions: excentricity, surface waves and the like.

Two main factors made it things be in that way: the absolute irresponsibility of almost all audio manufacturer products ( every kind. ) an the conformity/mediocrity of audio market .

Is it that the " very especial " market niche name it: high end where all of us belongs?, shame of that to every one.

Through the years I think I posted here and in other forums same kind of opinion about ( 7-9 times. ) and on each time always exist " audiophiles " that are ok with that big problem.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear don_c55: You have to think that in any tonearm alignment set up choice the distortion levels change ( up and down against where null points are. ) at each recorded groove or minimum playback tonearm movement and no one can detect those so small changing distortion levels.

The people that like to change null points or pivot to spindle tonearm distance can´t detect those distortion levels.

Some people say that with the new tonearm set up things sounds better and this " fact " cab be for two mainly reasons:

that the first set up was non accurate as the new set up or that even that both set up were accurate the person wants to hear the improvement because he think that with the new set up distortions levels gone down but this " gone down " is so tiny/insignificant that in reality can’t be detected!

"""" When you adopt a different alignment you're also changing effective length and offset angle. """"

This kind of sentences speaks of that audiophile mediocrity/low knowledge level where we " audiophiles " are " swiming " through.

You posted something critical: accuracy, and this is the name of the game with overall tonearm/set up. Anything else is only " imagination " not facts.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear fleib: Not really. Let that I try to explain all that. As you I 'm talking of standards alignments as both Loefgren A and B solutions ( Baerwald/Loefgren. ):

in the midel of the 20's a gentleman named Wilson was ( I think. ) the one that for the first time " touched " the overall tonearm alignment importance, that's all I know about Mr. Wilson and I don't know if he gaves any mathematic solutions.
In 1938 Loefgren was who goes in deep about and who gaves those both solutions/equations ( Baerwald solution comes latter and " even " the Loefgren A solution. ).
In those Loefgren equations the main target is to find out the precise offset angle and overhang with foundation/knowing the tonearm effective lenght ( L in the equtions. ) and radius of the Lp grooved  surface ( most inner and outer LP groove recorded area. ). For difference between that L and the overhang the Loefgren solutions achieve the distance between tonearm pivot to TT spindle. The L does not change in those Loefgren standard solutions, what changed is the offset angle, pivot to spindle and overhang values.

Now, we can do whatever we want with those equations but this is not the subject. Even we can have " hundred " of additional alignment solutions using Excel and other mahematics tools ( we can change the effective lenght in a tonearm through several kind of solutions and we can have different offset angles, overhang and null points too but is useless to do it. ) but again this is not the subject here.

My point explained through the example I posted with two different alignment solution for the same tonearm where does not change the effective lenght, I don't want that the effective lenght changed.
What I said is that if with the same tonearm we use two diferent alignment set up and in both alignments we have a " perfect " accuracy no one can detect the diferences in distortion levels because are so tiny and changing groove after groove that makes even tiny those distortion levels. Imposible to detect it.

So, for me is futile/useless try to make changes where those distortions happen in the recorded LP surface becaus we can't detect it and as I posted maybe we can " imagine " that hear the differences it because we " want " to hear differences when in reality we can't.
Just think how can you detect 0.15% of that kind of distortion and through each single LP groove that 0.15% goes down to 0.04%  and up to 0.21%.  Can you?

IMHO we don't have to worry about with tonearm alignment solution choosed the tonearm manufacturer or any one of us what we must worried is that the manufacturer gaves us his tonearm with a " perfect accurate " JIG to make with extremely precision/cero tolerance the tonearm set up in these 3 parameters:

- accurate set up distance from our each one TT spindle to Tonearm pivot. If this distance has not 100% of accuracy then it does not matters the accuracy level in the other set up parameters.

- accurate cartridge offset angle and

- accurate cartridge set up overhang.


That's all. No one needs or has to invent the " black thread ".


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

fleib: Don't try to create some kind of confusion in the people for what I posted here ( what I posted in other thread has additional explanation that because you are so dogmatic can't turn your " face " and only stay staright. ).

In reference to what I posted here my advise is that you read again the original Löfgren  works/solutions on tonearm/cartridge alignment. It's useless to follow the analysis with you till you read that original white papers where you could find out that the effective lenght does not change because is one of the fixed numbers/value in the equations solution ( we can change it if we want it but this is not the main subject. )  As I said what Löfgren equations solutions ( and Baerwald/Bauer/Pisha/Stevenson/et. ) gives are: offset angle, overhang, pivot to spindle distance ( by diference. ) and null points not effective lenght.

We can manipulate those equations to achieve a tonearm effective lenght  but that again is not the subject on what I'm refering to. I'm talking of the Löfgren original work.

Enough for now.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear dover: """ Rauls comments about the Technics EPA 100 are superfluous in this thread as it was never designed for heavy low compliance cartridges and in fact you have to modify the counterweight for heavier cartridges.... """

I respect your opinion trying to " disregard " my post.

Now, you say that was not designed for heavy/low compliance cartridges but its design characteristics does not confirm that.

The EPA 100 effective mass is 22gr., has a removable universal headshell that if we use something like the Denon PL-5 ( 5grs. ) we can mount with out modifications cartridge weighting to 17grs and additional to all those tonearm characteristics it has the best damping mechanism I know in any tonearm till today.

I owned 3 EPA 100 ( one of them the MK2. ), 1 EPA 250 and 1 EPA 500  and always mated very good all the cartridges with diferent weight and compliance. I still own two Technics tonearms.

In the other side I never had any single trouble with all those Technics tonearms at its ruby bearings and as Pryso I never had the opportunity to read any where in the net that kind of trouble with other that the Pryso one.

So, I can’t see why my post was " superfluous " as you said. Nver mind.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

fleib:  """  The only stipulation is mounting distance remains constant """

I ask you or gave my advise ( twice . ) that take a look again to the original Löfgren papers and I can see you did not and follow posting that kind of sentences that does not help. Why don't do that and share with us your findings and if not that be that way. I can't help about.

"""   I'm too busy now  """.

OH !  I see that "  you're tenacious "  too!! and that you don't want to help you . Fine with me.

Anyway and with this I'm finish in this critical audio subject for any audiophile:



"""  Look to these real calculated numbers/values for a 10" tonearm using Baerwald and Lofgreen B alignments:

both cases the cartridge offset angle is the same: 21.586

the difference in cartridge overhang in between is only 0.457 mm  """


that is what I posted to don_c55 where that overhang diference came from the individual Baerwald/Löfgren calculations: 

Baerwald: 16.224  and Löfgren:  16.681

what fleib said is that the tonearm mounting distance in that 10" tonearm stay the same and only has to adjust the overhang.

Well, in those papers I'm talking about the equations solution, not only for Löfgren but for the other similar kind of alignments states this:

M= L - d      where M is the pivot to spindle distance and d the overhang with L as effective lenght that was part of the input data in those equations and here for this particular 10" tonearm.

L is data input and M changes according the new calculated overhang (d) . The new tonearm mounting distance is: 

237.78 for Baerwald   and   237.32 for Löfgren. Mantaining same effective length.

As I said we can manipulate those original equations to leave M as data input or anything  we wish but that is not the main subject here.

Btw, Stevenson calculated values are: 

overhang:  13.43  and offset angle:  19.912°   for that 10" tonearm.

Stevenson has two solutions as Löfgren the first one is similar to Löfgren A and the results here is his second solution, way diferent.


In the other side you can't embarrass me  on that subject especialy when  you don't participated  there. So, don't worry about, I'm not I have nothing for what there or any where I could have some kind of that " embarrass ".

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

dover:  """   5g rattly pressed tin headshell... """

that Denon headshell was only an example but if you don't like it then you can use a low weight magnesium damped headshell by Audio Technica.

The subject here is not the headshell but that the EPA 100 takes heavy/low compliance cartridges with no problem and with lower distortions.

EPA 100 was a serious advance on tonearm engineering design and repeat that its exclusive damping mechanism is an achievment and permit almost to mount on it anything you want and the cartridge will performs with low distortions.

No, the 64/66 sounds " odd to me " ( as you said. ) because is a distortions generator and that's all. No not for me, I posted here " hundred " of times: I want to be nearest to the LP recording not away for with that ridiculous tonearms.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear friends: """ What don’t you understand? Effective length = pivot to spindle (mounting distance) + overhang (spindle to stylus). If mounting distance remains constant, then effective length (L) must change with a different alignment. """

that’s a common misunderstood on cartridge/tonearm alignment set up that I had for many many years and that many of us still have.

When a tonearm designer/manufacturer begin with his design he choose the tonearm effective length not the pivot to spindle distance. He does not care on this distance because tell him nothing. In the other side knowing the tonearm effective lenght in his design all the other alignment/set up parameters comes trhough the choosed alignment calculations it does not matters if he choosed Baerwald, Löfgren B or Stevenson.

The designer choose only one alignment type not 2-3 of them and even if he choosed ( this never happens. ) 2-3 diferent alignmets the effective length stay the same because is the foundation of his design. As I said no designer choose pivot to spindle distance as foundation for his tonearm design, has no sense to do it.

In the example I posted here on a 10" tonearm ( effective length. ) all the main parameters/variables were diferent for Baerwald, Löfgren and Stevenson. Here I write again he calculations:

OVERHANG: B L S

16.224 16.681 13.43

Off.ANGLE: 21.586 21.586 19.912

Pivot-Spindle: 237.78 237.32 240.57


and the Null Points calculated are diferent too:

inner null p.: 65.998 70.285

outer null p.: 120.991 116.604

this NP. is where on each kind of alignment the tracking error and distortion is cero in a pivot tonearm and the foundation to have a graphic/diagram for the overall distortions through the LP surface recorded grooves.


The data input in the equations for any of those alignments are:

innermost groove distance, outermost groove distance ( here we can choose between standards as: DIN, IEC or we can choose a different values. ) and EFFECTIVE LENGTH ( the one and only choosed by the tonearm designer ).

Through those 3 data inputs the equations gives :

Overhang, offset angle, null points and pivot to spindle distance. These are the variables in those standard alignment types.


If for a more easy task we just change the overhang and offset angle with out change too the pivot to spindle distance what we have are higher distortions in ALL the recorded LP surface!!!

So we have to respect the equations in those white papers and do not do it the other way around as fleib suggest. Looks the same but it’s not and what any one of you can do it to confirm it is to make your own calculations where you will find out those higher distortions figures I’m talking about.

Btw, a friend of mine that I respect and who owns like me the Dynavector 505 told me that he prefers in his tonearm the Stevenson alignment recomended by the manufacturer when my self do not like S. alignment and prefer Löfgren.

If in that 505 we try to make the set up with Löfgren alignment with out change in the pivot to spindle distance then because the distortions goes higher we dislike what we hear. Maybe my Agoner friend just don’t change the tonearm mount position in his TT.

Many of us make changes in the overhang/offset angle with out any change in the pivot to spindle distance and is a mistake. I understand that we do or did not because we can’t make new drills in the plinth every time we make those kind of changes. Now, if we choose not to change the PtS distance we can do it but distortions are different, as I said in other posts we can manipulate the original equations and makes whatever we want it but this is not the subject here. I’m talking of be orthodox in that regard.


As I recomend to fleib maybe is time to read again the original Löfgren papers and not like fleib just posting with out read it and not only read it but understand it.

Now, maybe with some of you the differences on what I hear with some cartridges is because the alignment set up difference.

The message here is that we don’t need to change the alignment we have but to reset it and make again the set up with " cero tolerances ".
Accuracy is the critical main parameter we must care during the set up because minimal errors as 0.5mm ( overhang ) represent not only where the distortions will happen but that those distoritons goes higher too.

I think that Baerwald or Löfgren is more than enough the alignment we need.

The message to all toearm designers/manufacturers is that take their main responsability to give usthe accurate and user friendly JIGs to set up their each one tonearm design. Responsability that today almost all just don’t give the vital importance for we customers and music lover audiophiles.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

PS:  I'm sharing my opinion here to learn and not to achieve that " I have the reason and you are wrong ". Nothing like that far away from that sentence. I can be wrong and I would like to know  if really I'm wrong and if yes then I hope that any one of you be so kind to tell me in a wide explanation why I'm wrong. That's all, always I'm willing to learn and if necessary accept my mistakes. With out mistakes we just can't learn and grow up.

Thank's for your help and understanding.

fleib: """ When you adopt a different alignment you're also changing effective length ... """

according with that sentence a tonearm designer first needs to know the pivot to spindle distance to determine the effective length on his tonearm design?

You said that I have to forget Löfgren papers but makes no sense to me because there is the overall foundation on tonearm alignment and from there comes all the know type of alignments as: Baerwald, Bauer, Pisha, Stevenson, etc..

So, please tell me why me or any one must do that?. Don't put examples of nothing and please give a specific answer because through this thread you never give a specific answer with an explanation of why: yes or why: not.

You are reluctant one and again to avoid the Löfgren papers and just post nothing that makes reference to it:

which are your reasons not to do it? what's wrong down there?

The 3 calculations on 3 different type of alignments ( through Löfgren original papers. ) I posted showed that on each calculation the PtS distance was a variable and different on each type of aligment.

In the Löfgren his equations ( and all the other know alignments posted here: B, P, B, S. ) starts with a knowed L ( effective length ) and from here comes all the alignment variables like the PtS one that in there comes from here:

M = L - d    , where L is the knowed ( fix. ) effective length, d the calculated overhang and M the PtS distance.

Please don't just tell me that I'm wrong. Tell me why, give any explanation. This is not a contest as many gentlemans here I want to learn and if you are right then: good for all of us. This is all about.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Btw, forgeret about that 505. It's not the main subject in what we are discussing.
I repeat don't put examples just an explanation and please don't try ( again ) to change the subject taking a different " road ". Stay in the road!

Btw, I'm using the IEC ( not DIN. ) standard for the calculations in the original equations and through it the second solution in Stevenson ( first solution is similar as Löfgren A. ) calculated this null points:

60.325 and 117.417  , not the ones by VE not even if I choose DIN standard. Remember that accuracy is the name of the game: cero tolerance, but the point is that of these null points but about that effective length subject.


There are many internet calculators that as VE ones does not stay in focus.

The original equations are simple ones and by algebra we can do whatever we want ( I already said it 3-4 times in the thread. ).

If we want the PtS distance fixed then we can do it or if we want that the overhang stay the same with different alignments we can do it.
That's what shows all those calculators and create several misunderstood like the fleib one.

Fleib, I already did my job years ago because I had that misunderstood too. 
Now you need to do your job too just from the begining with the foundation of all this subject: Löfgren explanation and equations and I'm sure you will understand it or can confirm your point.

Repeat, forgeret about manipulations of those equations or new dedicated  alignments because no one can hear the level distortions changes in an accurate alignment set up.

Dear lewm: Dynavector specs are really odd because don’t even the theoretical Stevenson calculations with the 241 effective length, 226 P2S and the 21.5° in offset angle they writed as tonearm specs.

Using IEC standard the nearest ( Stevenson. ) equations calculations gives:

L = 241.162 overhang: 15.162 and offset angle: 21.624° for the specification of P2S: 226.

Seems to me that even the manufacturer calculations are not accurate neither the protractor that comes with the tonearm.

Btw, when you used Baerwald in that tonearm: did you changed the P2S distance?, because it must be change it.

In the other side the difference between the Baerwald/Stevenson offset angle is lower than 1.5° but the other Baerwald parameters must be take in count in precise way.

Anyway, what do you think about the Löfgren papers/equations and the fixed parameters/foundation data those papers/equations states?

I’m asking you because, as always, fleib never gives a direct answer about.

Could you help? or maybe: Dover?  griffithds or: some one else?

I think that must be at least one other person with the precise and right answer even if is different answer from my opinion.

Answers are appreciated.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

fleib: Finally! a more direct answer from you, good. I have no time now to give my point and I will give latter on.

Thank's.

R.

Dear lewm: What I try to say is to use one: Baerwald or if we like Löfgren A/B. I don't think we can need more.
Today almost all the cartridges comes with a better suspension " mechanism " than in the past and the tonearms are more or less well damped with better damped TT, clamps and platter mats and all these makes things better than in the past. In the other side electronics and speakers improved too and makes that we can make a better cartridge/tonearm set up than in the past. There are many audio topics that improved and helps for that we needonly just kind of alignment if and only if the set up has ACCURACY/cero tolerance. Tha's it.

I use the MINTLP as an example because is one of the more accurate in the market and is dedicated for your TT/tonearm combination and for less than 150.00.  Could you ask for more or need something different?, I think not but I respect each one opinion and remember that my advise is only in the mean time that manufacturers of all today and future tonearms can give us their answer we all are waiting for in the way that we customers do not need again to look for an after market devices.

Respect the 505 we can talk private through email but as I posted not important in the main subject because is only another tonearm with some unique kind of design, maybe not a good example for my meanings.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear friends: I hope this could be my last post in this controversial and misunderstanding critical/vital tonearm/cartridge set up.

"  Yes, the Loefgren calculations are correct. They are the basis of all the others. ", with the fleib " approval " here it is:

" Löfgren’s prime strategy is the ‘Löfgren A’ alignment which is based on adjusting the offset angle and overhang so as to minimise the weighted tracking error (WTE) and so minimise tracking distortion. "

The equation develpments to achieve those targets has three data input: outermost groove, innermost groove and effective length.

Löfgren and also tonearm designers/manufacturers does not care about P2S but primary the knowed/choosed effective length ( this is the first tonearm design parameter for nay designer. ) and second the offset angle and then overgang and at the end and  for reference to mount the pivoted tonearm design the difference between L and d gaves in automatic the P2S.

Baerwald, Bauer, Pisha, Stevenson and other gentlemans developed similar equations to Löfgren A ones. Stevenson developed two solutions, his B one similar to Löfgren and the A one that´s the one knowed as Stevenson ( the one used in Dynavector and other Japanese tonearms. ).

Stevenson used his original equations and in his A solution what he changed was one of the equations data inputs: instead of innermost groove distance he changed for an  inner null point to have at minimum ( last inner grooves mms. ) the distortion levels/tracking error in these last inner grooves with the trade off that all over the other LP recorded grooves the distortion is higher.

In all kind of alignments/solutions always exist trade-offs, there is no single kind of perfect alignment.

Now, if a tonearm manufacturer wants to change the original choosed tonearm effective length or wants to design a new tonearm with different effective length he will use the same equations and only makes the change to the new effective length data to know the new offset angle and overhang but as the begining he does not cares about the P2S for his design.
As a fact a manufacturer need to know the P2S distance for two main purposes: to build the tonearm mount JIG and information for his customers and that's all.

Whatever solution/alignment is choosed by a tonearm manufacturer the data inputs needs no changes and must be the ones stated by Löfgren and the others gentlemans but the Stevenson A solution.

So, to mantain the required distortion levels on each one of those alignments type everytime that efective length change the solution equations give us the changes in: offset angle, overhang and P2S.

In those old times ( 30's. ) Microsoft Excel tools did not exist and no spread calculators as the ones we have over the net that far away to really help us can puts several misunderstandings as the fleib/dover/lewm/Dynavector ones and many others, I made the same mistake for years Maybe in a dedicated thread I will disclose their common mistake in the mean time I hope that by it self they can find out the correct answer that's the Löfgren one.

Through several net calculators we can change the data inputs in the way we can imagine: we can stay with the same offset angle for different effctive lengths or we can stay with the same P2S for different effective lengths or change the innermost/outermost groove distance out of the IEC or DIN standards or any " crazy " choice but normally with out any real sound quality improvements but more of the time with higher distortions and a change in the LP surface where those distortions happens.
All these non-orthodox algebraic manipulations to the original equations are reallu useless for the customers/audiophiles.

I posted that the name of the game in a tonearm/cartridge set up is: ACCURACY and through the posts in this thread all were exposed about and why we don't need to look " for three foots of a cat knowing has four ".

IMHO we don't need Stevenson A or an special alignments for some kind of LPs , is futile 
What we need is that the Baerwald or what we choosed  be made it with ACCURACY/CERO TOLERANCE because a deviation of less than 0.5mm on overhang or 2° in offset angle or in P2S makes that distortions goes severly high against an accurate set up.

We audiophiles like to take out the tonearm manufacturers main responsabilities and own 4 or 10 different alignment protractors and we have " fun " making changes with out understand in deep what are invloved through each single change we do about and I think that we have to take seriously this vital cartridge/tonearm set up that in many ways define the quality sound level of our each one system.

My advise is: stop to play that game like a child with a new toy instead to play with only one alignmet solution toy and play it with ACCURACY.

If we are playing all those " games " with out accuracy what we are listening are only sound/music information with higher distortions, it does not matters that we are happy with those distortions.

In the mean time that the manufactuers of tonearms takes by it self the responsability to give us the ACCURATE and user friendly protractors to mount the tonearm and to mount the cartridge what we need is not a protractor with multiple options ( is useless. ) but one with single option ( example Baerwald. ) that be ACCURATE like the MINTLP that's dedicated to your specific TT/tonearm.

I can see here that some of you are proudly owners of several after market protractors of different prices, good you are but normally almost all of them are not good enough. In the other side ask your self: how many times each week or month do you need to change the kind of alignment ( for whatever reasons. ) in your tonearm/cartridge set up and WHY you need to do it? is usefull?

Remember that the distortion levels change in tiny increments/decrements at each recorded groove and no one of us can discern those distortion levels it does not matters the overall quality of the audio system we own.

Of course that the after market protractors builders tell us why we have to use diffeent kind of alignments and they take advantage of our each one misunderstood level.

Btw, from the last years the audio after market item market niche was and is growing up and maybe is better business than to market audio products and are all these audio products manufacturers whom permited the grow up and existence of all those after market items. Pity.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.


dover, no I don't modified my 505 and the new set up is only 2mm ( around it ) on P2S and less than 1.5° on OA. The dyna specs are not accurate.
Never mind, has no critical importance your posts but a misunderstanding by your part. Please don't give any answer to this opinion.

dover: do you have right now on hand the 505?

If yes just try Baerwald or Löfgren alignment changing the P2S distance from Stevenson. Then listen and listen in between ( B, L and S alignments. ) and return here to share your experiences there.

If not, your post is useless and futile this time.

Through all your posts in this thread and IMHO your contributions helps to no one because you have not today facts on hand.

R.

Dear lewm: I'm only want to clarify mi overall position on your last email:

I can´t see nothing really wrong on Baerwald or Löfgren that could preclude I don't use it. The one that I'm not advocated is Stevenson alignment.

If I choose B or L the main subject is that the overall alignment be accurate when mounting the tonearm and when mounting the cartridge: offset angle, overhang and P2S. Tha's all.

Regarding that the MINT protractor is a dedicated one for the TT/tonearm and when you or me own 4 tonearms ( example. ) you will have the right protractor for each tonearm for only 400.00 but how many audiophiles has 4 or more tonearms that really are in constant use?, only a few audiophiles.
In the other side as I posted that some protractors came with options to make alignments for different LP labels is something useless and out of reality because how many times each week we will be willing to reset the whole tonearm/cartridge alignment only to listen 2-3 LPs and after that return to the original alignment.
I can understand that could exist audiophiles that are doing that " every day/week " but 99.95% do not cares about and the fact is that we really don't need it.

Lewm, what do you want: listen MUSIC all the time or just making changes in hardware loosing the time?
My opinion is that if my audio system is already fine tunned at every single link in the audio system chain the we have to worried only where exist more time to listen MUSIC and not looking to play the hardware when the system is already fine tunned.
Well that's me, maybe you think different and is ok.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear chakster: I don’t like unipivots ( even that I own some of them. ) and the 401 has no universal removable headshell but Denon had other good tonearm as the 307/309 that I owned and are good options too.

I think that a very good option for your system is the EPA 100 or GST 801, better than the JVC 7045/7040 that I brought to this forum first time years ago. I’m not saying that the JVC is not up to the task because it’s but the other two are better ones. Grace gimbaled tonearm designs are good option too.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

.

Dear analogluvr: """  there is no lack of low frequency information. """

I would like ask: compared against which other tonearms and with which cartridges and in which audio systems? did you compare it against the same digital tracks in a digital player using at least 24 bits/192 DACs?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear lewm: """  with the arm mounted according to factory instruction   """

What I'm saying to you and dover is to use Baerwald/Löfgren alignment according the " numbers " calculated in those alignments: offset angle, overhang and P2S, what must stay the same is the 505 effective length.

You did not changed the P2S and that's one of the main problem with those distortions you mentioned.
I know that's a pain in the ass to change ( in any tonearm. ) the P2S each time we want to change the alignment but if we choose ( example ) B/L alignments and we want to stay with the same distoertion levels then we have to mount the tonearm and cartridge according to those alignment calculations if not then distortions goes higher as you experienced.

Anyway, only to clarify my opinion .

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

dover: """   do you have right now on hand the 505?

If yes just try Baerwald or Löfgren alignment changing the P2S distance from Stevenson. Then listen and listen in between ( B, L and S alignments. ) and return here to share your experiences there.

If not, your post is useless and futile this time. """

That's what I posted and ask to you looking for your in focus/precise answer or answers and this is what you answered:


"""  You are wrong again.
I own a Dynavector DV501 ....."""


I can't see why I'm wrong because I'm not saying you don't own a Dyna tonearm and things are that you own the 501 that shares exactly the same geometry design than the 505. Where is the problem because my question was very specific for the 505 or the 501 that is similar.

Instead to give a in focus answer your first sentence was trying to disregards ( as always with no single real contribution. ) mine but things are that in that same sentence who is wrong is you. Go figure!

Now, instead to say something in direct reference to my questioning post you followed your starting sentences with a " history/tale " that has no apparent reason to do it other that try to justify your self in some way ( what did you try to justify with that " tale "?. ). Has no sense to me that history that I really don't care because don't gives  any " light " in my questioning to you.

Never mind, I really don't care about your answers about because you have no real and serious answers.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear kirkus: I agree on the STAX build quality level. 

I never like me the cartridge quality level performance using the manufacturer alignment specs and if I remember I used Baerwald with better results.

Something in your post that hold my attention was and is:

"""  and it also sounds great with an integrated-style headshell for B&O cartridges (MMC20CL .... """


I respect your opinion and I never mounted my same cartridge sample by B&O in the STAX but I did it in at least other 4-5 arms and always with a degraded sound quality level against the same cartridge mounted directly in a universal headshell.
That plastic headshel type used with the 20CL is more or less the same concept for some of the Acutex models and I experienced the same disappointment with: sound degraded quality level.

Good that you share same opinion about the critical importance of accuracy on tonearm and cartridge set up alignments.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear fleib:  """   It's good you gave opinions on some arms. """

I already gave my opinion about tonearms for wrm0325. What other kind of tonearm opinion you are refering to?

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear analogluvr: I posted that it will be useful to know which cartridges and which audio system to evaluate quality bass response.

It's desired that for that overall system bass management evaluation one of the audio system links be a pair of active subwoofers wired in true stereo fashion, that the system electronics link be SS using cartridges with not only flat frequency response but very good trackers and natural tone and wide separation between channels with no bias to any frequency band preferences and with very well damped tonearms and TT.
Yes, sounds as we need the " perfect " system but we really don't need a perfect one but one that at least goes in that " road ". We need an overall low distortions system.

In the other side that the tracks used for the evaluation we choosed ( between other things. ) because we own the digital counterpart too. IMHO to evaluate bass quality level a digital counterpart is a must to have.

Of those tonearms you named I don't know nothing of the SME 3: I own/owned the IV/V/3009/3012. The unipivot for this evaluation is no real contender ( at least that model. ). The one I heard but never did that bass evaluation was the MS that is a good vintage tonearm.

As you can see it's not easy for any of us try to make bass management evaluation and probably the hardest frequency band to evaluate.

Btw, I already posted that the ET-2 is an audio icon in the audio industry history. Good, for you.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear kirkus: Through the B&O adapter the audio experience with those cartridges you own is a good one.

Those models you own along the MMC2/1 are great performers. Normally only a few audiophiles cares about B&O and the ones that did not try it are loosing a very good audio experience.

I still own my STAX tonearm but is in its box, maybe some day I will mount it again and try with my B&O cartridges.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear friends: Curious, this is what Dover posted at the end of 2013:


"""" I prefer Baerwald A for all my pivoted arms including the Dynavector which was designed for Stevenson. """


and in this thread he disregards me " severely " because I used/tested Baerwald/Löfgren B with Dyna tonearm !!!!!!!!!!!

Btw, that’s the first time I read: Baerwald A, maybe a new kind of alignment by dover. Now, I understand why dover posted his " history " and seems to me that was to justify him self with other people eyes about his audio " knowledge " level.

Anyway a learning day as always.


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear azjake: I really don't care of those people trying to " insult/disregards " my opinion. Some one, like me, that post and posted several times a day always exist persons that because their audio knowledge level disagree or because they can't understand my points puts at " defensive " attaking me with out success and normally ends in the frustration of each one of them but that's how things are " around here " or " around me " because it happens in other forums through the net. All these kind of people still think that each thread/post is a contest and each one of them wants to win when my self only want to learn and share first hand experiences, that's all.

There is a telling people here in México ( please is not an insult to any one, far away from that. Is only a way to say things in some ocasions.): " let the dogs shout ".


Nice to know from you again. It's pity that many of the " regulars " in this analog forum suddenly " disappeared "   ??????


Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear kirkus: Maybe people do not give especial attention to those B&O cartridges because its very low weigth that gives some problems to balance it through the tonearms. IMHO, is worth to listen to.

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.