Hello all, Recently procured a Feickert Blackbird w/ the Jelco 12 inch tonearm. The table is really good, and its a keeper. The Jelco is also very good, but not as good as my Fidelity Research FR66s. So the Jelco will eventually hit Ebay, and the question remains do I keep the FR66s or sell that and buy something modern in the 5-6 K range. My only point of reference is my old JMW-10 on my Aries MK1, so I don't know how the FR66s would compare to a modern arm. So I'd like to rely on the collective knowledge and experience of this group for a recommendation.
Keep the FR66s, or go modern in the 5-6K range, say a Moerch DP8 or maybe an SME.
Any and all thoughts and opinions are of course much appreciated.
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.
I will offer arm suggestions specifically for high compliance cartridges as all were introduced during their peak popularity (no particular order). - Infinity/ADC - Mayware Formula IV or others in this series (I adapted one to an AR-XA table) - SME 3009 Series III
I was thinking about Infinity Black Widown latest version with graphite armtube. Never tried it myself, so i need some feedbacks from experienced users. Anyone?
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.
Hi Raul . . . I'll admit that I haven't tried the 1/2"-mount adapter with a conventional headshell to mount the B&O cartridges specifically on the UA-7 . . . quite frankly, I'm a bit short of headshells, but on your recommendation I might give it a try when I get the chance.
I have found that it's quite the moving target to get B&O cartridges to perform their best . . . and will concede that I've seen quite a bit of variability in the manufacturing and condition of their adapters and "headshells" for non-B&O tonearms. I actually had to combine parts from three "integrated"-style adapters, carefully trim the molding flash, and use a stronger clamp fastener before I ended up with one where both parts fit well together to allow positive overhang and azimuth adjustment, as well as firm grip when the cartridge snapped into place. There's also the issue that the integrated-style headshell grounds the cartridge case to one channel of the cartridge leads, rather than to a separate pin as on the 1/2"-mount adapters . . . I can see this being an issue for some phono stage designs (notably some with balanced inputs) I've seen.
It does also seem that in general you've had better luck with lower-resonant-frequency cartridge-tonearm combinations than I have, and I can only speculate as to why this may be the case. IIRC the measured resonance peak I'm getting is about 9Hz with the integrated headshell, and since I've never had a good experience with any combination from The Land of Five Hertz . . . maybe the lightweight Ortofon wooden headshell will be a good match.
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.
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.
chakster, with apologies to the OP for this sidetrack I will offer arm suggestions specifically for high compliance cartridges as all were introduced during their peak popularity (no particular order). - Infinity/ADC - Mayware Formula IV or others in this series (I adapted one to an AR-XA table) - SME 3009 Series III
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.
@pryso you're right, forgive my english. I believe any tonearms under $1500 considering a budget arms in hi-end business. Vintage Stax and Denon from Raul's list cost only $500-700 normally which is really cheap. Ebay is not the right place for vintage japanese stuff (tonearms or cartridges) imho.
I'm looking for light effective mass vintage tonearm for second system for high compliance mm cartridges.
I already have Reed 3p for mid compliance carts and Schick for very low compliance cartridges.
Hello all - Chakster mentioned the Stax UA-7, which I'm currently using with a handful of different cartridges whilst mounted on a TD-124. It's geometry is a bit unusual, putting the inner null point substantially inside even the Stevenson solution (at 56mm), even though it has a longish (for a "9-inch" arm) 240mm effective length. I like this tonearm's general design and versitility, the low pivot friction, the consistency of its anti-skate mechanism, the graceful aesthetic, and the overall quality of fit and finish. I'm consistently happy with the sound quality from a wide variety of different cartridges. But I've never understood why they chose the geometry they did . . . mainly because I have yet to find a record that has modulation so close to the center as to justify it.
In exploring other geometries, my main fork in the road was whether or not the stock 20-degree offset is to be observed . . . and if this is the case, one cannot pull the inner null point toward the outside of the record without also pushing the outer null point towards the center, and if the tracking error is to be kept fairly constant at the outside of the record, then there must be a corresponding increase in both the effective length and the mounting distance. If one alters the offset, then it's possible to move the null points both further apart and further away from the center . . . that is, towards the Baerwald solution.
I personally consider the act of changing tonearm geometry in the same vein as that of all equipment modifications . . . it's worth it to the extent that one is solving specific issues with a reasonable amount of elegance and precision. But there's a point after where a certain amount change starts to fly in the face of the original design, and then you have to ask yourself . . . "If I'm changing it this much, do I really like this thing enough to own it in the first place?" On tonearm geometry, it's obviously a matter of degrees (couldn't resist the pun) . . .
I ended up mounting it at the stock mounting distance from the spindle . . . I wanted to try the stock geometry out of respect for the designers and so I could thoroughly correlate the sound with my own preconceptions of what the "correct" geometry should be. I've found that it leaves little to be desired with elliptical and spherical styli (i.e. Shelter 501 and Denon carts), and it also sounds great with an integrated-style headshell for B&O cartridges (MMC20CL and rebuilt MMC6000) . . . the latter with a custom lighter counterweight, which combined with the headshell, gives an appropriate reduction on mass for the higher compliance cartridges.
For the fancier MCs (Cadenza Bronze and Delos) I've pulled the overhang up to 15.5 mm and the offset to 21.7 degrees (2.5mm and 1.7 degrees from stock) - this is a solution "in the Baerwald direction", and the results are outstanding. I arrived at this by playing with the fit of a few cartridges in the stock headshell, and coming to the conclusion that there was only so much extra mounting room before it really started to "feel wrong" and become a decidedly inelegant setup. I do understand the concern that altering the overhang creates a variation of azimuth with vertical deflection of the tonearm, but when you actually see it in practice, 1.7 degrees is extremely small to affect this compared to the length of the arm and the deflection of a moderate record warp.
I will echo the sentiment that whatever the geometry is chosen, precise alignment is an absolute must. I'm very much an arc-protractor guy, and I have them made as required for every turntable/tonearm geometry solution I set up. My approach is to calculate the geometry with an Excel spreadsheet, generate an HPGL file using my PC-board design software that has the appropriate arc placement and null points, and have them machined to order by Front Panel Express, usually for about $30 apiece. I verify the spindle-to-pivot distance on existing mountings usually with a 12" dial caliper and a bit of basic math . . . for new mountings I have a variety of dummy tonearm posts machined locally, combined with the caliper and/or mounting-distance bars/plates sourced locally or from Front Panel Express.
The key to precise alignment is to use methods that allow each dimension or angle to be verified against each other, to make sure your measurement techniques properly fit the specific hardware, and to understand what the required tolerances are for each dimension. Being a mm away from perfect on the spindle-to-pivot is VERY different from being a mm off on the overhang.
chakster, twice now you've used the term "budged". First time I thought that was a typo and you intended to say budget. That is why I suggested Jelco. And BTW, without checking compliance numbers I did use a couple of Grados and possibly a Shure or Stanton in my Premier FT-3 without issue. All that was several years ago. Anyway, I don't know what budged means.
But now you speak of Reed, Schick, EPA-100 and 100 Mk 2. None of those are budget arms. There was an EPA-100 Mk 2 on Ebay not long ago for around $1,800. Your situation may be different than mine but I would not consider that a budget arm.
Hi raul i compared it against a vpi 12, micro seiki ma 505, sme3. More importantly when I first got it I did experience a lack of bass. Then I learned how to set it up and it produced at least the equivalent with a better soundstage and detail.
Dover, I meant to say, Stevenson inner null is standard lead-out groove.
That might help understand a particular alignment's relationship with the various parts of a record. I'm sure you know the design goals of each alignment, but any 2 null points are a "good" alignment. If you ask why Loefgren B is lowest total error, and why A is lowest average, then you can figure what is traded off. Maybe a graph helps see it.
Raul, you made some basic assumptions that are not necessarily true. I didn't discuss it with you because it seems fruitless and I'm under no obligation to do so. It's good you gave opinions on some arms.
Pryso No, i don’t want Jelco since i’m looking for the arm for high compliance cartrigdes (30cu @10Hz). Jelco is not designed for high compliance as far as i know.
Sold my EPA-100 last year, now thinking about EPA-100 mk2 (at least) or some other budged arms you have recommended in the past here. My ex EPA-100 from seller Foxtan was deffected (loose bearing) from the start, returned to the seller to fix the problem. I got it bask soon with no problem but i can not verify is that original ruby bearing or replaced one by his vendor. He told me the vendor should add silicone fluid in the bearing part (someone has mentioned this here). Later someone told me it can be tricky as the original ruby ball can be also replaced by cheaper bearing from sl1210 arm instead. So i was not sure about my arm after his service. I just decided to get rid of it.
Later for my main system (sp10 mk2) i just bought demo Reed 3P "12 cocobolo directly from Lithuania from the manufacturer and i’m happy. I’ve met people at Reed in person, they are very friendly and provided top class service and price for me for their used early version of Reed 3P (great arm imho).
I wonder what is the fair price for Lustere GST 801 nowadays?
P.S. i have Shcick "12 tonearm but it’s for low compliacne carts mainly. I have some mid - high compliacne MM cartridges (including Stanton 980 LZS) now and i want some decent arm for second system.
Alignment is defined by a standard, not a test record. Inner null is standard lead-out groove. Even if you use IEC (or whatever it is) the numbers are very close and the relationship between inner and outer null is the same, only moved slightly, just as UNI nulls are Loefgren B moved in 5mm, with a variance of 0.1mm.between the nulls.
It seems to me, the suggestion to align to Stevenson is ill conceived. Further demands to change to one of the Loefgren alignments by changing mounting distance, is bizarre.
I've already posted this information and I have to agree with Lewm, life is too short.
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?
Fleib, Factory nulls for the Dynavector arms are Inner 60.1mm Outer 116.5mm ( VE is wrong ) Dynavector state that their arm geometry is set for minimum lateral tracking angle error at the inner groove. Tracking angle error for Dynavectors using standard Dynavector alignment is 0degree at inner band of record and +2.2degrees at outside. They do not specify which record they use as a reference so inner band could mean anything.
Lewm - Fyi my 501 has the DV7A arm base which allows for metal arm boards - the DV7A uses a single through hole collet and bolt under the arm board. This base provides a much more rigid coupling to the arm board than the the traditional screw in arm base used in the 505 that only has a top plate and screws. I suspect this was also a factor in the designer of the Final Audio VTT1 rejecting the 505 in favour of the 501.
chakster, would you consider a moderately priced new arm of good quality? If so I might suggest one of the Jelco models.
Also there are used versions made by Jelco for other brands, such as Audioquest, Sumiko Premier, and Ortofon. I owned a Premier FT-3 arm some years ago and found it to be a very competent performer.
Jelco also continues to build arms which a number of manufacturers offer new with their turntables.
" ... And with regards to rauls comments about the ET's bass, if it is set up properly there is no lack of low frequency information. In fact there is hardly any added extra resonances which I know raul is a huge fan of. Sometimes that may sound like less bass."
Agreed, absolutely! It's not uncommon to confuse excessive arm resonance with extra bass response.
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.
I have wired my ET 2's up with a straight shot wiring as well as my SMEE 3009. Chris is absolutely right you get huge improvements eliminating all those connections. And with regards to rauls comments about the ET's bass, if it is set up properly there is no lack of low frequency information. In fact there is hardly any added extra resonances which I know raul is a huge fan of. Sometimes that may sound like less bass. Properly set up (which is very easy) an ET two is a Sota arm. It is different to set up however. Approach it with common sense and you will be fine.
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.
I've got a DV501, as well. Up to now I have not auditioned it, because it was not suitable for use with my slate plinths. However, it can be mounted on my TT101 and SP10 Mk3 plinths, and I will give it a try. Dover is not the first to say that the DV501 is superior to the DV505, but I will have to listen for myself. No one in my experience, except maybe Raul, is as certain of his convictions as is Dover. So Dover and Raul should not bother to argue with each other.
As to what alignment I use with the DV505, and to repeat for the third time, I tried to use Baerwald/Lofgren, with the arm mounted according to factory instruction. To achieve this alignment one must twist the cartridge in the headshell. After I completed the alignment, there was obvious distortion, using a cartridge with which I was previously familiar. I hypothesized that the distortion might be generated because of the misalignment between the vertical arc of the cantilever and that of the vertical bearing of the DV505, which comes about because of twisting the cartridge. I then and only then reverted to using Stevenson, and the sound was much improved, which only supports my hypothesis but does not prove it. Subsequently, I bought the UNItractor with a template for the DV505 (and a few other tonearms). When I re-aligned the DV505 using the UNI, the sound improved further by a small factor. I therefore am guessing that the alignment built into the UNI for the DV505 is not quite exactly Stevenson, but it must be very close to it.
Raul, it amuses me that you imply that I change among cartridges and tonearms too frequently. In English, we have a saying "the pot calls the kettle black". Anyway, I am fine with however many tonearms and cartridges you may own, and I am sure you feel the same. In fact, my practice is to have a separate turntable for each tonearm that I regularly use. In each tonearm, I have mounted a cartridge I like, some LOMC, some MM/MI. I am prone to listen to the same tonearm/cartridge for months at a time, if not years at a time, so I really do not make many changes once I settle in. It's just that I have 5 turntables.
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.
Raul, You are wrong again. I own a Dynavector DV501 which is superior to the DV505. It is more rigid through the vertical bearings than the older 505. I own the actual Final Audio VTT1 turntable and Dynavector arms and cartridges used in the review of Japanese Highend Audio by Warwick Mickell in TAS in 1983. I also own a Dynavector Karat Nova 13D which is set up for Stevenson with its integral headshell. Here is a link to the same Dynavector Karat Nova 13D set up for Baerwald/Lofgren A using the same Dynavector DV501 and Ikeda Headshell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXzmZ10Q2kE You will also note the the video clip shows that I have also run the same Dynavector Karat Nova 13D cartridge in a Fidelity Research FR64S. You will also note if you look at my other video clips that I have run the same Dynavector Karat Nova 13D cartridge in a unipivot Naim Aro that I also own.
My Dynavector Karat Nova 13D is real and freshly rebuilt by Dynavector with an updated micro ridge stylus ( previously had a fineline ); it is not a frankenstein fake like the one you advertised on Audiogon.
Personally I preferred the Dynavector Karat Nova 13D with Baerwald/Lofgren A but Lewm has preferred Stevenson with his cartridges. Unless you have heard Lewms system you cannot possibly disagree with him.
As far as science goes the pros and cons of offset vertical bearings vs straight vertical bearings arguments are real and measurable. Origin Live for example have listened to both options and prefer to go with non offset bearings. Other arm manufacturers have taken a different view.
Furthermore I also have an Eminent Technology ET2, much improved with custom mods, that has no tracking error and a lower horizontal effective mass than both the Dynavector and Fidelity Research arms due to the clever patented decoupled counterweight system. Not only that but the decoupled counterweight in the horizontal plain also means that the vertical and horizontal resonant frequencies are split and the fundamental resonant peak is much lower. If you do your research and go and find the Shure white papers on tracking, you will find that the fundamental resonance of tonearm/cartridge combinations induces a sweeping motion in the stylus cantilever when tracking even normal grooves. Therefore the ET2 will have the best tracking of any of the arms discussed in this thread.
Whilst I agree with your comment on the ET2 being mechanically ungrounded due to the captured air bearing, Martin Colloms review in Hifi News of the ET2, where he ran some resonance tests, showed that resonances induced in the arm wand tended to pass through the air bearing relatively unchanged.
I have run the same cartridges through all my arms which include the ET2, Naim Aro, FR64S & Dynavector 501 and I rank them in that order, subject to cartridge compatibility. Examples : Shure V15vmr & vxmr - 1st ET2, 2nd Dynavector 501 Koetsu's - 1st ET2, 2nd FR64S Dynavector Nova 13D, 1st ET2, 2nd Naim Aro Ikeda Kiwame - 1st FR64S. Other arms owned previously include the SME V, Zeta, Alphason, Well Tempered, Syrinx and many others.
PS on the subject of the FR64S I own two of them - one silver wired, the other copper wired.The silver wired version is considerably more transparent than the copper wired version, and is tighter, cleaner and faster particularly in the bottom end.
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.
fleib, for you, and anyone else considering a Dennesen/Feickert type device, allow me to be more precise. Sometimes my mind works faster than my fingers can type! ;^)
My only issue in using an alignment device such as the Dennesen is the need to accurately locate the pivot point of an already mounted arm. Some arms in my experience (EPA-100, Kuzma Stogi Reference, VPI) have a screw or at least an indentation on top of the arm tube or bearing armature so the reference rod can be positioned directly above the pivot point of the arm. This is necessary for both overhang and offset.
When I’ve tried using my Dennesen on any arm without such a reference marking I’m forced to eyeball the position of the vertical reference rod to the "estimated" pivot point and then hold it in that position while I continue with a one-handed alignment. Given the scale of alignment distances that is chancy at best.
My reference to sighting the cantilever for offset alignment meant relative to the lines etched on the Dennesen base plate, NOT back to the pivot point for the arm. That would defeat the offset alignment.
The last time I needed to mark a pivot point to drill a mounting hole for an arm I made a dedicated template. Using a manila file folder I cut out a 2" wide strip of appropriate length. Then with a good quality metal scale I marked off the spindle to pivot distance and precisely marked both. I carefully cut a X over the spindle marking (that allowed a pressure grip by the quadrants around the spindle) and punched the pivot point with a pin. Then inserting a 0.5 Pentel pencil I scribed the arc line to drill for arm placement. I found that easier than using the Dennesen.
Lastly, perhaps I should not have mentioned the DV-505 since I have no personal experience with it.
Crazy Bill, I enjoyed your story. My nickname "Pryso" goes back to high school so that was fun.
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.
Wrm, I grew up, to age 9, in Woodmont, CT, which is a tiny blue collar suburb of West Haven. I remember my friend's father digging clams on the beach to feed his family and lobstermen catching lobsters only 50 yards off-shore. Those were the days, my friend. We moved to New Haven when I reached 9 years.
I really don't want to get involved in the hostilities here, but in fairness to Raul, and unless I misunderstood his long post, he was not saying that alignment geometry is unimportant; he was instead advocating for Baerwald uber alles. I disagree with that position, but I don't live and breathe this stuff, nor do I intend to. I do agree with Dover as regards the issues that are raised when you twist the cartridge/cantilever with respect to the vertical pivot arc of the tonearm, based on my direct experiences.
Pryso, Dennesen sold a separate device for dealers. I couldn't remember the name. I searched for a photo, but couldn't find one. It was called the Pivotram and used for locating arm mount holes. I do the same thing as you - reverse the SoundTractor bar and use a ruler to measure distance. It's easy for me to correct for the offset of the bar and get a pretty accurate mount hole. There is usually a little play in the fit of the arm pillar into the hole, especially with DIY drilling.
When using a pivot pointer device like this to align, it doesn't matter if your mounting distance is off a hair or two, as long as you can align to the grid with the pointer in correct position, your alignment is good. A SoundTractor or Feikert works where the pivot is actually located, not where it theoretically should be. If your arm mounting distance is off a bit , and you get a good alignment, then your offset angle will also be off a hair. Here's an old discussion about it. My user name was lfleib.
With most pivoting arms the cantilever is not pointing to a pivot, due to offset. The discussion of maintaining mfg. offset is arm specific, and should be limited to that IMO.
RE: the quote - I tend to think the Brits should be blamed for most things, but I don't know about the Japanese use of the Stevenson alignment. That seems a bit of a stretch. The use of Stevenson was a very sensible thing at the time, but became a sort of default standard along with 15mm overhang. If you have an arm designed for Stevenson, there are some options.
Part of the quote was linking Dynavector to Stevenson. It is not.
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.
Raul, Accuracy of set up is critical to optimising the performance of an analogue playback system. You are wrong when you make a contention that alignment choice - Baerwald, Lofgren, Stevenson etc - is of less importance. This shows a complete ignorance of the underlying engineering principles and choices that designers have employed in the design of their tonearms. If you think that aligning a cartridge in such a way that the cartridge is out of alignment with the vertical bearings has zero impact, then this reinforces to me that you do not understand basic mechanical engineering and basic principles of physics. If you don’t want responses to your posts then you should not be participating in this forum. I suggest you start another website where you can peddle your theories without being interrupted by others who may know more than you.
My grandfather on my mother's side was Norwegian, and he was a fisherman. During my teenage years he would take me fishing for flounder ( upon which he relied heavily to feed his family ), along the Ct. shore between Westport and Norwalk. Our favorite spot was the Sagatuck Bridge on the Sagatuck River in Westport. When the flounder were running, the action was fast and furious. We would think nothing of 100+ fish hauls during the run.
Well, there was also eel runs in the river. My grandfather hated to catch them, as they would get up to 3 ft.+ and be 2 inches in diameter. Getting them off of the hook was a major league PITA.
Grandpa passed in 1969, and I continued to fish the river. I was fishing there one morning, and two old Portugese gentlemen were sitting in chairs at one end of the bridge, and the eels were running. They offered me fifty cents an eel, no limits to how many. They had a sack, I only had to kill them before I put them in the sack ( which was pretty much necessary to get the hook out of them anyway ). I was making $ 20.00 + every Sunday morning having fun, which wasn't too shabby for a young college student. It was how I spent my Sunday mornings.
Well, one Sunday a bunch of my college buddies tagged along, because they didn't believe me about the Portugese gents and the money I made. After watching me have a great haul, and of course killing each eel, ( I used the humane method of a ghillie ( slang term used for a police type slapper used to dispatch the eel by wacking it in the head ), as we walked off the bridge, my buddy Dennis looks at me and said " I hereby name you Crazy Bill the Eel Killer ". And so it began.
They still call me that to this day, and it spread ( much to my initial dismay at the time ) around the University of Bridgeport campus like wildfire.
fleib, because of another comment I just reread your 3-4-2016 post. I may have misunderstood something with my first reading.
You mentioned a Dennesen accessory to locate the arm mounting hole. I thought that was in response to my comment on locating the pivot point for the arm. But my mention had nothing to do with locating the pivot point to drill and mount an arm. Rather it related to setting up the Dennesen. This can be difficult with arms which do not identify their pivot point in some way on top of the arm tube or pivot armature. That was my reference to disappointments in use. Fortunately that has not been an issue with most arms I've used.
Back to arm recommendations and some discussion here of the DV505. Without making any specific recommendation I might suggest that Crazy Bill, and any others looking for an arm, to consider if they have reason to prefer one of the common alignment formulas and pick an arm which conforms with that. Case in point, which includes the DV505, I recently found this in a post on Vinyl Asylum by bkearns, "The following is a list of tonearms with recommended null radii at or near the IEC inner groove radius (60.325mm):- Audio Technica AT1009; Audio Technica AT1010; Dynavector DV 505; Hadcock Super Unilift MKIII; Infinity Black Widow GF; Keith Monks M9BA Mk3; Series 20 PA1000. In addition the Rega tonearms (perhaps), and many integrated turntables from Japan appear to conform to this system. Perhaps the popularity of Stevenson's method relates to the predominance of British engineering in turntables and tonearms."
Thanks, Raul. Please don't confuse the fact that I own a DV505 with the idea that I believe it to be "the best" of anything. I really think most audio equipment is flawed in one way or another and that it is our job to put pieces together that work as synergistically as possible to produce whatever "sound" one is pursuing. (In your case, that would be the lowest distortion possible, pure and simple.) Many people don't understand that the term "synergism" means 1+1 = more than 2, by the way. When 1+1 =2, the interaction is merely "additive". I actually chose the DV505 several years ago for use with slate plinths I made for my Lenco and for my DP80; I wanted tonearms that could be flush-mounted on top of the slate without need for an armboard or to drill the slate, which is a royal pain in the culo. The Triplanar, Reed, Durand tonearms also fit this description but are more costly.
I seriously considered the Mint LP when I decided to buy the UNItractor. The UNI is like the Mint in that it is different for every possible tonearm, but unlike the Mint in that it is a 2-point alignment, not an arc alignment. However, 2 points define an arc for a given constant radius. If you have a lot of tonearms, then the cost of the UNI rapidly becomes reasonable, as compared to buying a Mint LP for every tonearm. The UNI includes a different template for each tonearm, accommodation for three different spindle diameters, ability to set the cartridge using a stabilized magnifier, a built on light which makes the job easier, and several other features that make exact set-up closer to possible. But like the DV505, I am not saying it's perfect or "the best", just very very good.
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.
In fact I have used my Dennesen for the reverse process, to draw the arc to identify location for mounting an arm.
I also use a small Tensor light and hand held magnifier with the Dennesen when doing an alignment. And I ignore the cartridge body and do all my sightings along the cantilever. But I will check out linen magnifiers to see if one might be easier that what I use now (a small version of your standard Sherlock Holmes model).
And now that you mention it, I seem to recall the Feickert I saw did offer alignment options, but as stated, I'm happy with Baerwald.
Over the years I've owned a dB Systems protractor and those from various arm manufacturers but I really like the simplicity of the Dennesen. And the results sound good to me and elicit complements on my system. ;^)
Raul, It would be helpful if I can boil down your idea into one or two simple sentences. Is it your thesis that one should standardize on one and only one geometry, Baerwald, because it offers the lowest average tracking distortion across the LP surface? If you can respond "yes" or "no", that would be OK with me. Thanks.
What I, and I think also Dover, wrote is that if the tonearm was not designed for Baerwald geometry (meaning essentially that the headshell offset angle is wrong for Baerwald, given that the tonearm is mounted according to manufacturer's recommended overhang or P2S or whatever), then one must twist the cartridge in the headshell to achieve Baerwald. I found that this resulted in a distortion (Dynavector DV505) that was much more obvious and objectionable than any that I hear when I use the DV505 with recommended geometry, inferior though that may be by comparison to Baerwald. Granted, one could move the pivot point around, or alter stylus overhang, so as to better accommodate Baerwald for a tonearm not designed for Baerwald, but that is very inconvenient at best, if not impossible in some cases.
Now it also seems you are saying that every protractor except maybe the Mint LP is an inferior toy. That helps no one, except those who use the Mint LP.
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.
Pryso, Dennesen made another device to accurately locate the arm mounting hole. It was like a 2 sided ruler with a long slot in the middle. One end tightened over the spindle while staying at zero. The other end had a clamp where you could insert a pencil or stylus to subscribe an arc on the armboard. The clamp could be tightened anywhere along the slot to accurately locate mounting hole.
I believe the SoundTractor was the first device of its kind, and the prototype for the ones like it - pivot pointers. A GeoDisk works on the same principle but with a different kind of pointer. With some of these newer ones you have more options for alignments and they might be easier to see.
There is an inexpensive magnifier you can pick up. It's called a linen magnifier. They come in various powers and stand at an angle - could be helpful. Get low power though, like 5X ? Stronger lens is hairier, has a shorter focal length and is more liable to optical/user error. I use reading glasses of various strengths. Magnifiers and uneven lighting can mess up a careful alignment and I always double check with a conventional protractor. Depending on your arm sometimes the pointer goes off center pivot, you misalign, and the pointer goes back and looks okay when you put it back in the arm rest. 30 years ago a metal SoundTractor was $100 and the tonearm hole locator was $200.To answer your question, no reason to upgrade with your situation.
An arc protractor is predicated on the proposition that your arm is perfectly mounted - factory. Otherwise it's not only useless, you'll wind up misaligned. Not recommended for DIY tonearm mounts.
fleib, when you say "fancy Dennesen tonearm locator, just as all these alignment grid/pivot pointer protractors are based on the SoundTractor, only they're better." do you mean the others are more accurate than the Dennesen? Or easier to use? Something else?
I'm not at all familiar with the UNI and I've at least looked at a Feickert at audio shows. But I've owned and used a metal Dennesen for nearly as long as Lew. So long as the pivot point of the arm can be located I've had no reason to be disappointed with my cartridge set ups. And yes, I'm satisfied with the Baerwald alignment.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
