I've heard about the special alignment that Derto suggest for FR64S and now ... the Phantom requires another one !
Can someone please explain to me about :
"the specific geometry" of an arm ?
What are the individual parameters ?
In my case, I've just bought the SAEC WE-308 SX .
The first thing that you can see, is the insanely small Offset Angle : 11.984 (the Eff. Length is only : 9.448")!!!
I've search & copy from the VA :
"This arm was the result of research by Sansui Co. to determine the optimum pivot position from a kinematic point of view, with the mass of the arm, the location of the center of gravity and the moment of inertia around the system's center of gravity taken into account to solve the problem of resonance. It is designed for dynamic balancing across multiple axes of rotation for stability against resonances. Any change in the arm geometry will change the resonance of the system "
The recommended by SAEC Overhang (for it's 240mm Eff. Length) is only 5mm
The IEC Baerwald equivalent for 240mm Eff. Length is 17.241
The difference between the Pivot recom. by SAEC (235mm) & the Pivot that resulting by the IEC Baerwald alignment (222.76mm) is huge !
The guys who tried the SAEC suggestion they confused so much with the distorted performance, that are convinced for this was the reason why SAEC arms did not make a success in their times. So, they rotate the cartridge on the headshell by another 10.93` to find the right Offset Angle of 22.914` and then they proceed by the IEC B alignment.
Why they choose the Baerwald ?
Is is wise to give a chance to every other known alignment geometry ?
How can any one determine the right method of alignment for a tonearm, IF the Offset Angle does not match with any known geometry ?
Can you advise specifically about my WE-308 SX ?
Thank you. |
Dear Daniel,
You are perfectly clear this time at last!
But how you could manage to drive me crazy for so long, it's beyond my understanding.
As I figured at an earlier post, it's all about setting new null (zero) points. Perfectly understood & respected by me. |
Thank you all for your kind responses.
Unfortunatelly the users manual can not help but rather making the situation much worst & perplex.
If I get it right ...
Dertonarm is the only one who suggest a different alignment than the Baerwald IEC. It seems to me that he explores some new or underestimated parameters in tonearm geometry and obviously he discovers a relationship between the alignment for the least tracking error & the alignment for better control of resonance for any given tonearm !
Every other guy in my search, -all of them- are following the usual Baerwald IEC :
John Elison about SAEC WE-308 :
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/78/788115.html
Wally Malewicz suggesting : "to use dedicated W-tractor for Rega Arms , but be prepared to twist Cartridge in the Headshell"
Allen Wright that from 1982 becomes the Australian importer claims about the WE-407/23 :
"...and am actually responsible for the /23 part of the model number. It stands for the 23 degree offset (bend) angle of the headsheel that is correct for the two point "western" arm/cartridge aligment as used today.
The original 407 used the non standard SAEC offset angle that was much less than 23 degrees, and only offered correct alignment at the inner grooves of an LP. I had them make the arm with 23 degrees offset angle to match "our" alignments and be saleable in the West"......
Allen Wright for the SAEC WE-308 :
..... "I actually don't have a 407/23 as I sold them all way back, I got a mint NIB 308 a couple of years ago and use it - with the cartridges weirdly twisted in the headshells to get the angle correct"
As you can see..........there is no doubt about the general acceptance for the Baerwald IEC standard alignment geometry.
I hope not to fall far from topic, but maybe this is a good opportunity, once the SAEC WE-308 has rundown to torture his users for the last 27 years.
Thus Im wondering if the time has come for Dertonarm to release some knowledge to the rest of us...
But are we ready to accept his "paradox" findings ?
Can we handle any truth beyond the graphic diagrams ?
So far the listening tests are giving credit to him for his new FR64S' alignment geometry & I can't think that he acted randomly without a very good reason behind this !
Is it really just the Offset Angle that determines the chosen geometry ? I doubt.
Thank you for your patience & my apologies for my ignorance. |
Dear Raul, thank you for your contribution.
Your words exactly were my belief in so many years.
Please read my argument with Dgad about this subject at the link below :
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1285867301&openflup&35&4#35
But I'm sure we are missing something.
Again, how we can explain the Phantom's unique alignment ?
By default ?
What is the point of concern in a tonearm's geometry to dictate it's prefered form of alignment ?
Our ears are the final judge, yes, but I don't think that the result is not predictable. It must be at least one crucial point in arm's geometry that can direct us to choose
what is best.
OK. but even then, how can anyone find the special & unique individual alignment that is different from all the B or L or S, IEC or DIN that we know how to calculate ?
Maybe the listening tests are cheaters and the only way for pure & neutral performance is the graphic diagram of distortion & tracking error. I don't argue about this.
But then, we must all stay at the side of Technics amplifiers with 0.003% THD and B&O speakers with perfectly flat freq. response.
It is not that bad to explore something new, even if it is radical and going against our traditional view.
It's the fun part that opens our horizon to new possibilities & maybe offers new & unfound pleasures.
Gullible & optimistic am I ? |
Dear Dertonarm,
NO !
I don't appreciate to read behind your lines !
What is supposed to said by my cantilever if you accept the usual logic of only this matters & not the arm's geometry ?
What's the point of providing individual templates if you declare the usual & known alignments ?
Please be straight & specific about your thoughts to the subject this time. To confusing my or perhaps and others mind is not your will I would like to believe.
PS :
I'm greatful for your effort to offer this protractor to the community,
but remember that your act for doing this, was directed by your commitment to this hobby & your will to help us. |
Direct & Straight
You are my man ! |
Dear Raul,
To where I want to go with this subject, it is surely has to do with the claims of new findings, other than the known ones.
Is it my imagination or someone talks about that ?
I'm not pretending that I know something different from you, but I was hopping for a clarification about those guru settings & uknown methods of unique geometry alignments...(?) |
Dear Daniel,
I have a great respect for your work and I've never questioned your hard earned knowledge.
I hope to understand my queries resulting by daze & excitement when I've heard that there are more parameters of concern about the tonearm's geometry in the search for a more sophisticated integration combining some physics to geometry.
I'm still quite perplexed for I can't find those "simple (?) & basic (!) engineering approaches" but I'm trying really hard to become an adherent of your findings and comprehend your meticulous sense of premium execution of every plan & any project.
I respect your wright to insulate your method as a matter of business ethics & I'm reluctand to pushing more this chapter that is full of mystify sequences (for me at least).
I suppose its time for faith or rejection.
I ... need my time for shure.
Kind Regards |
Dear Syntax,
Thank you for your nice photos.
It is clear that for ALL of my records, (your first photo) the prefered TONEARM'S ALIGNMENT is the Loefgren B.
The problem that I'm still have, is that I can't indentify those particular points on the TONEARM'S GEOMETRY, that dictates to a specialised/individual/unique alignment !
Not to be confused with the alignments of the B,L,S, IEC or DIN, (that depended by the way the LPs were printed on vinyl).
I'm really sorry that I'm posting about this again, but I've just figured a possible misunderstanding might occur about my quest.
What I mean is : When you look a tonearm, how can you see those points that require a modification in it's geometry ?
Is that all about setting new null points ?
I don't expect an answer, I'm posting this just to clarify.
Thanks again. |
Thank you Syntax for this excellent post.
Replies for developing a state of mind like this one, can help us maybe even more than the actual product ! |
If I can recall, it is about abec7 Vs abec5 bearings. |
At last! For first time ever someone has noticed that a dynamicaly balanced pivoted tonearm is better.
I'm wondering do you feel that it is also neccessary (if it might be possible to integrate in) for the cardanic arms (Pluto 9A, Reed, Davinci, etc)? |
" dynamic balanced mode has a few good advantages vs static balanced mode - regarding guiding a cartridge with compliance through the groove of a record which is by nature NOT flat."
Excellent!
But what if this feature is the most critical ?
And what if we accept that probably the bearing friction on tonearms with ball bearings is considerably more than knife-edges, cardanics & unipivots, and this advanced feature can not incorporated in them or in a air bearing tonearm...
Does this pointing us the way of designing better tonearms?
Can we include this feature in a more sophisticated bearing ? |
Dear Daniel, it is my fault not to be clear about this. My LPs are all from '70s and I don't have but a few classical symphonic music so, I prefer the Loefgren B IEC, all the time. |
OK, Harry listens & then tunes his tonearm.
But Daniel doesn't do listening tests, 'cause he doesn't have all these arms in his hand !
This example of VPI arms, proves the value of an alternative curve other than the standard Lofgren A or B or Stevenson, but Daniel do it on paper! just after knowing the dimentions & angles of any particular tonearm !
IMHO this is extremely interesting & arises questions about real new findings concerning the arm's body (shape-form-contour) construction, as designed & manufactured from it's inventor. Not bad at all, to accept & adopt a formula based on Physics and then apply the mathematics. Maybe this scientific theory could help tonearm designers to build better examples that serve & accommodate this demand from the begining of the production, by having the right shape.
Unfortunately this method remains still a secret and the validation by anyone could happened only by listening tests, after purchasing the UNI-PROTRACTOR with the requested special template.
I apologise if I haven't any clue about this, or even worst, if I don't getting the whole theme right and I've just improvise for the rationalization of these templates. |
Travbrow :
"A tracing arc with a specific distortion curve should have the same geometric error and distortions regardless of the arm, cartridge stylus or if the record is stereo or mono, I thought? "
Good question!
With our restricted knowlege till now, this is a fact.
So, what is going on with Daniel's proximity ? |
Dear Raul,
We are all thankful for this thread
& your precious contribution in the subject. |
Once we cannot change the offset FOR the headshell...
...I suppose it is just a number and the only thing that we have to do, is to align the cantilever (by twisting the cartridge AT the headshell) to follow the axis of the tangent at the null point.
This particular tangent, is quite easy to designed by drawing the line from the center of the spindle to the desired null point and then we can easily find & draw the perpendicular of this line that intersects at the null point.
But I think that Daniel wants to provide a precise goniometer at the near future! |
I think we all want to learn from your findings about noise.
But the rest of us who were using tubes (& LOMC) we are in a deeper hole. |
Dear Syntax,
I really can't see even one reason for your post.
Your first photo is a paradigm that can not happens. Never!
Your third photo also shows a misalignment. Maybe a slight but true. Any difficulty that arises always, it has to do with the cantilever alignment and not with the stylus. Moreover, the centering of the protractor's needle to the pivot point, is by far the most difficult part. At least, this is what I want to believe. It is so obviously basic & easy to put the stylus into the hole, that about your third photo, I prefer to believe that you take a shot from some strange corner that can cheat the eye. The point of discussion is the prefered alignment, together with the accuracy of the protractor. The skill of the user to follow the offered precision is irrelevant. I'll take your examples as were about the difficulty for a successfully precise alignment that offered to the user by the Dennesen, in contrast with the more easy UNI-Protractor. |
Dear Thuckan, whats the use of the greatest protactor if one can not manage to take advantage of the offered precision?
The improper alignments that you have seen and heard, were due to wrong calculations or average protractor's quality. But if they were arised by the clumsiness of user, well, not only it is irrelevant to this thread, but I think that can also humiliate the demonstrator especially if he is one of the hardcore guys. If the user can not manipulate his fingers and his eyes, how can we speak about hearing faint sonic changes, since this presupposes the mental calm and a certain degree of manipulation of our nerves?
Can you please explain to me what the third photo is were about? Is this a demonstration of a great alignment? |
I'm not the one who is tolerant for this last o.1mm !
I can not imagine someone to spend his money on great TT/arm/cart, when at the same time he is carelessly putting the needle just close to the protractor's hole. It is always about to make the best with what we have. We tend to waste our energy by giving our greatest effort on the most anal alignment we can get, but unfortunately our protractors have limited precision and this is where the success ends. But when we watching the opposit happening, it is at least dissapointing. It is not about how experienced is the user. Once the setted alignment is verified as average by the protractor, when you can see the misalignment by your naked eye, you just don't proceed with a listening session until the results become satisfied. No excuses for newbies. Ιt is a matter of respect to your hobby & your cartridge. |
Dear Daniel, for second time in this thread you state :
+++[ "Setting the "cartridge offset angle" other than the offset angle of the tonearm's headshell does produce an additional break-down torque in the tonearm's static model - i.e. an additional force vector.
This is a plain mechanical fact - thanks to Isaac N. ...;-) ....
That additional break-down torque does of course influence the skating force." ]+++
I'm sorry for I'm not in a deep embarrassed position and have the nerve to ask you about such widely known physics.
I have a question for you (and it is a genuine one, due to my ignorance) :
The Talea, Schroeder, Clearaudio Satisfy are designed with adjustable arc on their rudimentary headshell. The Simon Yorke has circular headshell which does not shows any preference in cartridge angle. Moreover, there are some circular cartridge bodies also! How does the Newton's law applies there?
The antiskating force is always an adjustable issue and in no way the value of it can determine a fault on design. The fact that most of tonearm designs can not provide this feature by the right way, thus gradually increasing antiskating force, it does not giving the wright to anyone to acuse the cartridge's twisting on headshell.
Please tell me what I'm missing ? The cartridge is always slaved by the arm which is slaved by it's pivot point, so, there is no any relationship with cars moving freely on a road and are coming to take a close turn while having 100m/h
I'm sorry for asking but I really want to know better.
Thank you in advance.
George |
"There are a very few pivot tonearms out there with apply practically zero skating force to the stylus."
Why are you mention this? Are they having an advantage over the rest tonearms? I thought that as the friction increases towards the center of the LP, we can not assume the skating force as a constant value and so, we must apply an increasingly antiskating force anyway. I'm I get it wrong? |
Dear Daniel, I promise I'll stop to tease you with so much out of topic queries any more. I've just figured out that is worthless, as it seems you avoid to answer anyway. Not that you are obliged to do that of course.
(ie): the "alternation of the skating force the tonearm can apply to the stylus/groove contact" that resulted by the twisting of the cartridge to the headshell, it does not seems a downside to me. And this is coming logically once the skating force isn't constant, we have to apply an antiskating force even to those pivoted tonearms that "apply practically zero skating force to the stylus" in order to fight this force across the whole length of the record groovies. So, it seems a neccessity and also inevitable to me as long as it is depended by the cartridge & the groovies also and not only by the tonearm. Now according to this logic, once that we have to integrate an antiskate mechanism to the tonearm, I can't see why the value of it could be in any way an indication of the tonearm's quality. We just have to apply more to those tonearms that carring a "twisted"?! cartridge on their headshells.
I'm really sorry but I just can't follow your replies, as in your posts it is impossible for me to find anything like an advice or a suggestion, no matter what the question is. I'm sure it must be a comprehension issue due to the combination of my bad English and my sciolism and so, I'm stopping right here with my apologies. Anyway thank you for your patience and your ability to stay calm with me for so long. |
Dear Daniel, why don't you get a cup of hot milk and get a good sleep also?
Ooops! I forget. I promised not to ask anything. |
