When I said: proved, means ( between other things. ) that always works and works with the lower distortions measures.
raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: I already made it in other thread but this is more in specific: CONGRATULATIONS ! and best wishes for success.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Geoch: IMHO the alignment geometry alternative we can choose for cartridge/tonearm set up is " independent " in which tonearm we will make the set-up.
Löfgreen, Baerwald, Bauer, Stevenson, Pisha, etc, etc, set up geometry equations are mathematical/abstract " items " that the only tonearm factors that take in count is that the tonearm must be a PIVOTED and its effective lenght and that's all.
If you or any other person ( like the Sansui colaboration you posted. ) thinks in different way this kind of thinking IMHO is only a misunderstood or only a false marketing " tool ".
Goech, all geometry options for set up that exist ( till today ) has its foundation on Löfgren equations that comes from 1938 ( when your SAEC/Graham does not even exist. ) and no one option outperform the Löfgren B one.
Yes, with the SAEC tonearms if we follow the manufacturer set up information with many cartridges it is a pain for the headshell wires set up and that SAEC manufacturer set up advise does not gives any real advantage.
Löfgreen B IEC is very good option and has the best/lower overall distortion. The DIN one gives you a lower inside grooves distortions but with a higher distortions outside the inner grooves: I don't like it, my take is that good tonearm with good cartridges are very good trackers and I prefer lower distortions overall against a tiny lower inside grooves distortions that I'm sure you can't detect because the difference in distoprtion level between IEC and DIN is extremely small.
Anyway, the real subject is IMHO that you can use any geometry equations option it does not matters which tonearm you own.
Nothing impede that you can test Löfgren B or Löfgren A ( that's similar to Baerwald with the same offset angle/overhang. ) or Stevenson set up and decide which set up please you.
Be carefully when doing that because for you can hear the real differences everything reside/foundation in how accurate you made each one geometry option set up. If there are differences on accuracy options set up then the differences you will hear will be because those different inaccuracies levels.
If I was you, with your SAEC or any other pivoted tonearm, my choose will be Löfgren B (IEC. ) but you can choose whatever you want, it's your call.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Geoch: That general acceptance on Baerwald is IMHO a wrong way to go, nothing I repeat nothing outperform the overall low distortions ina Löfgren B geometry set up: it does not matters what other people could say or already said it.
These are the parameters for Löfgren B ( IEC ) SAEC 808SX: overhang: 17.729 with an offset angle: 22.914.
Distortion between null points: 0.424% with an average distortion: 0.366%.
Against DIN that has higher distortion figures: 0.469 and 0.376%
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Geoch: Graham unique?, well it is the same with SME V or other " unique " tonearm/cartridge geometry set-ups.
IMHO the only " unique " that has all those " unique " set ups are higher " unique " distortions and that's all.
Geoch, you can explore new things in the subject ( I love to explore and that's why I'm where I'm. ) but here is only mathemathics and only if you have a proved mathematical new " process " could change what we have today on that subject.
This is not that you can do it " by fault " or because " you think " is better some other way.
Now and IMHO, like with the Graham and other " unique " tonearm set ups: that a higher generated distortions likes you or likes other people does not means is right: it means only that you and those other people likes HIGHER DISTORTIONS and that's all.
You don't have to believe me, please put those " unique " tonearm set up ( any ) parameters in a " calculator " ( like the VE one. ) against the öfgren B ( IEC ) one and you can confirm what I'm saying.
Goech, distortions are not only gernerated by cartridge/tonearm tracking or tonearm/cartridge geometry set up, things are more more complex than that.
There are several other factors that " determine " any tonearm/cartridge quality performance level, this subject already was discussed in many other threads in the past.
Between those other factors are: type of tonearm pivot bearing, bearing build material, tolerance level on that bearing system, tonearm effective length, tonearm build materials, cartridge whole characteristics on compliance/stylus shape/MC or MM design/body build material/cantilever build material/etc/etc, arm board build material, etc, etc, and I can go on and on on this factor list.
I don't know where you want to go. Intrinsic tonearm resonances and cartridge resonances has almost nothing to " see " with those geometry equations.
IMHO if a tonearm was designed with a " unique " geometry set up equations on mind with greater distortions due to that geometry " unique " set up and even if you like it for me that tonearm design is a faulty one.
A good tonearm design must left ( very clear and precise. ) that you can discern between different set ups and not only that but that you can be aware that a higher distortion geometry equations set up almost always have to sounds with those higher distortions quality performance level, other way IMHO that tonearm design is not a good design.
Geoch, IMHO here it is not what we like but what is wrong or good/right.
This time and in this subject I'm with what is right. What other people could think on the same subject does not affect what is right because you can't change ( for the better ) that: 2+2=4.
IMHO your example of Technics/B&O has no aplication in this subject because we are not speaking of technology but mathematics: elemental mathematics for say the least.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: I think that the IEC and DIN subject is in someway " academic " because as you can read in the SAEC 308SX example the distortion " figures " in between are so small that I think no one but a bat could heard it.
So, for me Löfgren B is all what I have to say about and the IEC only for " calm in mind " and nothing else.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Geoch: Like you: just waiting for.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Thom_mackris: Nice to hear from you again.
Your post " disturb " me on some ways.
You named Schoroeder and Talea tonearm where I understand you are a distributor, then you named protractors like the Mint and the one of this thread and of course you want to serve your customers in the best way so please permit me to ask ( thank's in advance for your answer. ): all these means that the protractors supplied with the Talea and Schoroeder tonearms are so non-accurate or non-user friendly ( or both ) that you as a customer's take care of are " obligated " to look for better after market alternatives? are so bad those own tonearm manufacturer protractors or have I a misunderstood here?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Thom: +++++ " Up until this point, I have been recommending arc protractors for owners of all tonearms with adjustable headshell slots. The Mint combines availabilty and high quality. " +++++
I don't know how to tell this but IMHO it is a MAIN responsability of a tonearm manufacturer supply his customers that paid/pay multi K dollars for the tonearm with an accurate protractor in a way that we customers don't have to worried in any sense on that whole subject.
In the other side that a tonearm distributor ( like you ) support customers with advise on after market protractors could means that that manufacturer tonearm target about protractors are not achieved.
This fact is pity for we customers. This subject is like when you go to buy a car ( any ) then you paid for it but guess what?: your car comes with out tires, obviously that this makes no sense and certainly you or any one of us never be willing to buy a car with out tires or engine: so then why we accept that that tonearm comes " incomplete " ( with out tires/engine. ) and no one said a word about ( including audio distributors/sellers. ) but instead of make a claim to the tonearm manufacturer we are willing and exited and happy to buy/bought not only one after market protractors but several ones.
Maybe it is time that we customers could think to charge the tonearm manufacturer/seller where we buy/bought it the price for at least one after market protractor or ask to them that supply an accurate protractor with the tonearm we are buying.
I know that some of those tonearm manufacturers are reading this thread and I think their thoughts in the subject is a mut to and welcome!.
What do you think about?. Btw, I posted in a thread started by DT similar " worries ".
Btw, +++++ " So an experiment using the Unitractor and the Mint (note that I did not use the word "shootout") would have more validity. " ++++++
could be a learning exercise.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: I like almost all use audio after market items, I own no least than 9 different protractors but you know why?: because my ignorance level over time.
Fortunately that level improve over the years.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Thuchan and friends: +++++ " we all have spent a little too much in too many different solutions regarding finding the exact geometry for our tonearms............. for someone who deals with more than one tonearm/cart was calling for a universal approach " +++++
yes, a lot of time. IMHO from the point of view of tonearm/cartridge set up geometry there is no exact ( specific. ) geometry for a pivoted tonearm with slots on the headshell, let me explain it:
the only known " solution " to cartridge/tonearm geometry set up are the Löfgren equations ( 1938 ), all the other " solutions " are clones from Löfgreen ones ( Baerwald ( 1941 ) Stevenson ( 1966 ) and the like. ).
The original Löfgren was name it Löfgren A and is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking error at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. There is a small rise and fall in error between these points.
The second Löfgren solution was named Löfgren B and will gives you the lowest overall tracking error of any alignment method but with slightly higher error at the beginning and end of the record than the A method.
Both solutions are Universal ones and can be use it with any pivoted tonearm with slots in the headshell it does not matters the tonearm geometry design. If the tonearm is J or S shaped or what you " imagine " is not important for the set up.
This two Löfgren solutions/equations calculate ( in any set up ) the next set up parameters: overhang, offset angle, null points, linear offset and mounting distance.
These calculated parameters comes from the equations that have three known and only three parameters: tonearm effective length, most inner groove distance and most outer groove distance, there is no other single parameter need it or taked in count for the overall calculations: so the geometry tonearm design does not matters for this calculations, the only tonearm design factor important is that be a pivoted one.
Of course that you can make changes on this starting calculations parameters, this is that we can change the tonearm effective length for a different calculated set parameters or we can change the most inner groove distance tooo if we like it. Every time we made one of these changes we are changing too the traking error and tracking distortion values for that set up.
As you can see does not exist: that this or that kind of calculations is better for this or that tonearm, you are free to use it as you want: Löfgren A or B, there are no more, as I told you all the other " solutions " are mathematically identical to the Löfgren ones but only with different notation and arrangement.
It is ironic that for many of us Baerwald is more " familiar " name than Löfgren when was LÖfgren the creator of those two and only solutions.
The Baerwald solution is identical to Löfgren A as is the Stevenson B.
But like in many disciplines in the past and today exist the " false profets " that only create confusion/mix up but really does not add something new in favor of that discipline.
In numbers which are the differences between Löfgren A and B?, well the offset angle in both solutions are the same what is different is the overhang and by consecuence the mounting distance.
But do you know how much varies that overhang value?, around 0.4mm ( longer for Löfgren B solution. ) depending on the tonearm effective length.
Now, do you know how change the %distortion between Löfgren A and B?, well: máximum distortion between null points the difference is around 0.17% and the average ( over all the LP ) is 0.04%!!!!!
Do you think you or any one can detect those so low distortions differences?, certainly not. We need at least 1% of distortion to start to detect and no all the persons are so sensitive, there are persons that can't detect distortions on the 5% values and of course that depend which kind of distortion we are talking about but in general what we are talking on tonearm/cartridge set up we just can't.
I told you I own at least 9 protractors and any one of them is a Universal protractor but my ignorance in the past years made to ignore that fact ( universal ) and due to my ignorance level I followed to those " false profets " that taked advantage of my ignorance level and start to bought any single protractor out there.
Of course that there exist different protractor accuracy level that are important on quality performance but if the protractor accuracy is important there are other set up parameters that are important and critical, maybe more that the accuracy on protractors. At least two of those critical set up parameters are VTA/SRA and Azymuth and almost the 100% of the problems that many persons have with inner groove distortions and Shshshss on the voices recorded.
Let me tell you about: I never been very " anal " on the overhang/offset angle set up ( right now I'm using a 20.00 protractor with great success. ) but I take care a little more in deep on the SRA/Azymuth set up and you know what?, I never had/have inner groove distortion problems or exaggerated shshss on voices.
Thuchan, with that 20.00 protractor I just listened the 1812 Overture on Telarc where the most demanding score range ( cannons's shots. ) is at the inner grooves and the quality performance I heard was not only CLEAN but a great one!!!!, yes for me SRA/Azymuth are critical as is the own cartridge abilities to track along the tonearm it self.
I'm not saying that overhang/offset andgle/PTS distance are not important of course are important but there are a lot of things that define if we could have inner groove distortions or not.
Over the time I visited several Agoners places/homes like: F. Crowder, A. Porter, D. Deacon, S. Doobins, etc, etc , let me to tell you that in no one of this systems I heard inner groove distortions or exaggerate SHshshss on voices recorded and in no one of these places I see an " anal " attitude on protractors set up even in S.Doobins place he changed a cartridge using a protractor and taked 2-3 minutes to doing and even that that cartridge set up was not fine tunned everything performs first rate.
What I seen at those Agoner's places was a more in deep care for SRA/Azymuth/VTF set up even at " anal " level like in Doug's place.
Thank's God I learned ( actually, still learn every single day. )on the whole subject and in other audio subjects that permit that today I don't follow any more to those " false profets " or false myths created inside the AHEE because our ignorance level. Best medicine for this?: questioning always questioning ( what if that's not true or what if that white is not white? ) and testing, why? how? who? where? or just " please show me " prove me it's true.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul.
|
Dear Dertonarm: I run my Ikeda cartridge with the 506/30 with very good quality performance level and as you know the Ikeda cartridges are one of the lowest compliance cartridges out there.
Agree, the SAECs runs very well with MM/MI cartridges too.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: Almost all what you read in my latest post was writed for other people on the net and I only bring here with my " touch ".
Thuchan, the " black thread " was discovered many years ago.
regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Downunder: You said it not me.
I'm not talking about DT protractor but about what Thuchan posted so please read that post.
With all respect to those gentlemans: How do you name persons that cloned the Löfgren equations and present/introduce a " new " solutions as his solutions ?, false prophet is to much to you? ok change the name but things does not change. I think that " false prophet " is very elegant for that people.
Downunder, try to clone dollars or Yens and I can tell you that you could end on jail.
If you think you waist your money with MM/MI cartridges then you do it by ignorance and as you said: is part of our day by day hobby and like me you learned in that MM/MI subject in the same manner that I learned on the protractors subject after paid for my ignorance.
I bought and spended thousands of big dollars in " tons " of LOMC cartridges thank's to my ignorance and thank's to all those " false prophets " that supported this LOMC subject.
Which name do you like for this kind of people?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: Last time Agon deleted a thread with this same " discussion " subject ( as a fact the last one was the second time that happened for the same. ), I have 6-7 posts on those deleted threads and in one of them you give the " new " Fr set up parameters and result that distortions levels all over the LP were higher that any other approach/solution knowed.
So, till you don't show those lower distortions and better tonearm set up and only talk about telling us that there are something better IMHO is not enough. I repeat on that thread you try to prove it with out success but with a totally failure.
You ask why I return on this subject and the answer is because you insist on " nothing " and not only me but other people want to know where is that " true ". I'm not the only person that ask you about with no answer, Goech made it too in this thread as other made it on those threads I mentioned. Like all I would like to learn on that issue. If you don't want to talk about or you in reality have nothing then why bring it ones and again that ghost subject.
The people here in Méxiso say: " of tongue I eat 10Kgs. ".
On the Ikeda subject was many months ago when I posted on the quality performance of the SAEC/Ikeda combination. At the end the best cartridge performance was attained with the Mission The Mechanic tonearm.
Regrads and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Gentlemans: First than all I want to say again that I'm not questioning any single protractor ( including all the ones named in this thread. ), I'm not questioning VPI undisclose protractor parameters or the DT ones but the " concept " that some tonearms needs " dedicated " geometry set up, first question here: why not all tonearms?
In reality the Löfgren and copy equations/solutions are to determine the exact point/place and " direction/orientation " where the tip on the cartridge stylus must be to fulfil a criterion that could be defined by the cartridge/tonearm owners or the explicit criterion on Löfgren A/B Stevenson or what ever for any given tonearm geometry design ( inclusive you could note VPI site that the designer never talk about: " our specific tonearm geometry " and he don't speaks about because he knew on the subject. Neither Stevenson. )
These are some of those criterion for set up parameters calculations:
+++ Löfgren A and is the solution that gives you the lowest possible amount of tracking error at the inner, centre and outer grooves while keeping this error equal at all 3 points. +++++
+++ Löfgren B and will gives you the lowest overall tracking error of any alignment method but with slightly higher error at the beginning and end of the record than the A method. +++++
++++ Stevenson - a variation on Löfgren geometry optimized for low distortion at the inner groove at the expense of increased distortion elsewhere. +++++
VPI, in reality ( I could be wrong, so crrect me if I am. ) take the criterion to have the lowest distortion in the last 1/3 of the recorded area ( something similar to Stevenson, but not the same. ). For doing this what VPI made was to change one of the three input data on the Löfgren equations ( this is an option but he can determine the desired null points and works for a derivation of the inner groove radius. The result is the same ), the change was in the most inner groove distance ( that in the case of Stevenson he made that that input data coincide with the inside null point and that's why in the last one groove the distortion is cero. ) for change the null points in a way that fulfil that criterion but the foundation of any of these changes are still the Löfgren equations that any one can " manipulate " by algebra to fulfil his criterion.
The undisclose VPI set up parameters IMHO was something with almost no reason for that because in the very first moment that his tonearms and VPI jig/protractor be on customers hands it was very easy to know those set up parameters and this is what happen when VE people take their knowledge and time to analize which were those set up parameters and when they have on hand run calculations against Löfgren A/Baerwald and B . Well you can read it here:
www.vinylengine.com/vpi-tonearm-geometry.shtml.
You can note that in the models 10 and 10.5 even in the last 1/3 of the recorded area ( VPI criterion ) the Löfgren distortion is lower.
Through the thread I posted several times the importance of those three data inputs on the calculations and what happen if we change it:
+++++ I repeat again, in the Löfgren and clones solutions/equations you need three and only three input data for the calculations: tonearm effective length, most outer groove distance and most inner groove distance and is according these three numbers ( that you can choose as you want it. and for any reason you have. ) that you calculate the overhang and offset angle. +++++
+++++ In my last post before the one I sended to you I explain the Stevenson approach as an example on how we can manipulate/change the input data to achieve a different set up parameters. +++++
+++++ We don't need any other geometry parameter to make a tonearm/cartridge set up: effective length, overhang and offset angle are all we need. Even we don't have to care on the null points.
The null points are calculated and used for other things than stylus-cantilever/tonearm geometry set up. +++++
+++++ The Stevenson A cloned/solution ( adopted by several Japanese tonearm manufacturers. IMHO with out in deep analysis. ) is not something with " new " equations, Stevenson only wanted that at the inner groove the tracking error be cero so he taked one of the three input numbers ( in the Löfgren formulas. ): most inner grove distance as one null point and that's all.
This " solution " gives you almost cero tracking error/distortion in the last 30 seconds of a LP with a higher distortions on all the remaining LP surface than in any other " solution ". +++++
+++++ Any one of us can change ( in the Löfgren equations. ) this same input number and Voilá! we have a " new " Perry/Jones/Lopez/etc solution!!!. +++++
+++++ Now, if we change the data input to force better " figures " at inner groove that could be in detriment of higher distortions in the other 90% of the remaining LP grooves +++++
As any one can read on those Graeme F. Dennes white papers any change on that input data makes a change on null points. In those equations the null points are not input data but a calculation output of the equations. Of course, in mathematics you can re-arrange by algebra and could make that the null points be data input.
So, it is IMHO that the criterion is what define those three input data for calculate: overhang, offset angle and null points positions and not the " specific tonearm geometry ".
Other that the most inner groove distance ( inpput data ) we can change ( if the slots's length in the headshell permit it. ) the tonearm effective length data for a higher one to achieve better distortion figures but again not because tonearm geometry it self.
I could be wrong but in this thread and all over the net there is no single real scientific evidence that that is true.
Anyway, I think too that in one or other way the discussion was a learning one and I say this because due to many of the persons posts in the thread I was wrong when I thinked that some of you were " familiar " with all the terms ( terminology ) used on the subject and the most important the meaning of each term.
What's true is that today our knowledge level on the subject is higher than " yesterday ".
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear friends: I know for sure that many of us does not understand in deep the geometry cartridge/tonearm set up with both Löfgren solutions/equations and this fact is normal even some tonearm designers did not either, I know this because I asked with no certain responses.
The Löfgren equations, as I posted , are the only ones that exist that as a main targets are to calculate overhang and offset angle due to three input numbers ( tonearm effective length, most inner and outer groove distance. ), the calculation needs no other single input number and this fact is similar for the other clones/Copy solutions ( Baerwald, Stevenson, etc, etc. ).
We don't need any other geometry parameter to make a tonearm/cartridge set up: effective length, overhang and offset angle are all we need. Even we don't have to care on the null points.
The null points are calculated and used for other things than stylus-cantilever/tonearm geometry set up.
The Stevenson A cloned/solution ( adopted by several Japanese tonearm manufacturers. IMHO with out in deep analysis. ) is not something with " new " equations, Stevenson only wanted that at the inner groove the tracking error be cero so he taked one of the three input numbers ( in the Löfgren formulas. ): most inner grove distance as one null point and that's all.
This " solution " gives you almost cero tracking error/distortion in the last 30 seconds of a LP with a higher distortions on all the remaining LP surface than in any other " solution ".
Any one of us can change ( in the Löfgren equations. ) this same input number and Voilá! we have a " new " Perry/Jones/Lopez/etc solution!!!.
Till today, IMHO, no geometry set up solution beats the Löfgren ones.
The Löfgren solution passed ( and is. ) trhough a Optimization process ( minimax principle. ) to achieve the criterions that I posted in my Thuchan answer.
Today there is no known equations or process that outperform the Löfgren optimization formulas to calculate: overhang and offset angle in a pivoted tonearm in static playback conditions.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Genesis168: That's why any decent protractor helps for the set up, that's why the 20.00 one that I'm using right now and the 2.00 that use Downunder works wonderful.
We need only that the choosed protractor be " aligned " by/under Löfgren approach, if fulfil this approach then that single protractor is all we need to make the set up in any pivoted tonearm and with any cartridge.
Downunder: got it?
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Genesis168: IMHO maybe you don't understand very well the overall subject and what I posted in this thread about.
The main subject is not " if you don't think lofgren is the solution to all tonearm alignment " or what I think or what any other person/people think the fact is that those two Löfgren ( A/B ) solutions are the ones that exist and all the other " solutions ", including the solution you prefer ( it does not matters which one ), are only a copy/clon of those Löfgren equations.
In my last post before the one I sended to you I explain the Stevenson approach as an example on how we can manipulate/change the input data to achieve a different set up parameters but even in those cases the solution is still Löfgren, A or B but Löfgren.
Why is so complicated for you can understand something so simple?: there are no other solutions than Löfgren, what there are are different input data for the set up calculations.
Genesis168, examples: you go to a movie theatre named " Six Flags " to watch Avatar movie and next week you return to the same movie theatre to watch Black Swan, do you think that the name on that movie theatre ( everything the same ) changed or still named " Six Flags " ?, of course has the same name but different input.
You own a Honda Accord that comes with Bridgestone tires and today you decide to change those tires for Michelin: can this car tires change the model of your Honda from Accord to City/Civic?, no you still own a Honda Accord.
The same happen with Löfgren two solutions and like it or not like it to me or not like it to DT or not today we have to stay inside Löfgren A or Löfgren B solutions, that's all. There are no other solutions that gives you overall lower distortions.
As I posted: DT tryed in the past to prove exist a better solution for FR tonearms and when he posted the " new " set up parameters ( that he gives ) only showed higher distortions. What he is talking about again and again he never proved because he can't, what he made is only change the yesterday Avatar picture for today Black Swan one and that's all.
Any changes from Löfgren IEC/DIN only gives you overall higher distortions: it does not matter what you DT or I have to say about and this is with any pivoted tonearm and any stand alone cartridge. As DT said is simple geometry.
Genesis and DT: I'm not against the DT protractor or other protractors I'm only trying to help for what take me a lot of research and time to understand and learned it ( I'M a little " slow ". ) and that this proccess be more easy to any one of you in favor to improve your knowledge level on the subject.
+++++ " Were all different and we have a choice. Not everyone likes hamburgers and fries. " +++++
agree/yes, Löfgren A or Löfgren B are today our only choices. Easy, if you don't beleive this then ask DT that show you the " new " equations ( not input data. ) different from Löfgren ones that outperform it. If he shows that then we could have a third choice and certainly all of us shall win in favor of music sound reproduction at home!
DT, could you? at the end is you who proclam about. I'm sure that everyone would like to see Avatar in 4-D new pictures technology.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Genesis168: +++++ " Yes, Lofgren might be the first according to you " ++++
no it is not according to me it is just that was that way.
+++++ " What if the clone "somehow" sounds better than the original? " +++++
I'm talking on lower distortions with the original, which sounds better is a subjective issue. As DT states this whole subject is one of the few where you can find objetivity: this is mathematics and you can change that. That a Ferrari runs faster than other car is no example for compare the tonearm/cartridge set up geometry.
I repeat again, in the Löfgren and clones solutions/equations you need three and only three input data for the calculations: tonearm effective length, most outer groove distance and most inner groove distance and is according these three numbers ( that you can choose as you want it. and for any reason you have. ) that you calculate the overhang and offset angle. For each one three input data set exist one and only one overhang and offset numbers.
Each time you change any of those three input data you change the overhang and offset calculations.
Well, all those calculations were made through Löfgren A or B equations/solutions. Today there is no other way, I mean no one take it the research time to create a new method or other equations level different from Löfgren.
What do you don't understand on this that's what I was posted one and again?, please show me where are my faults because if I'm wrong ( that could be, why not. ) I want to know it and appreciate your help or any other person help including DT help.
I'm here to share my experiences and know-how level and to learn from all and each one of you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Genesis168: +++++ " What I have a problem is that there is no absolute. Raul is preaching absolutes. That s my problem. We have choices. " +++++
in mathematics and geometry is part of it there are no place for " subjective ", in our world: 2+2 always gives 4 and this is what I'm talking about. That you or any one want or would like that 2+2 could be 6 has no sense in the whole cartridge/tonearm set up geometry subject.
For you can understand what I posted in this thread you need to read and learn on the white papers by Graeme F. Dennes that you can find out in the net or download here:
www.vinylengine.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4854
Read it one and again till you fully understand what you read and then come back on that " absolute " subject because right now ( with all respect ) seems to me that you don't have any idea on the real subject.
For we can have a productive discussion at least we have to be in the same " channel " because if I'm talking of apples and you don't have any idea what's an apple how can we agree on nothing?.
Do it a favor, please read those Dennes white papers and I'm sure that the " ligth " will shine for you or any one that read it. As a plus you will learn that the idea DT try to " sale " here about " especial " tonearm set up due to very " especial " tonearm geometry is totally false. Please remember that you need only three known parameters to make a cartridge/tonearm set up: effective length, overhang and offset angle: nothing more.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " with 4.5 cm to the hole - Löfgren B is here way over 2% tracking distortion " +++++
I don't know where you take or calculated that 2%, could you tell us?
in any of the net calculators ( enjoy the music, Vinyl Engine ) in a normal effective tonearm length of 258mm with an inner most groove at 45mm the distortion is lower than: 0.3% at the inner grooves with 0.67% between null points and with an average of 0.55% a lot better than what you states.
Dertonarm, everyone is asking here for your precise answers about especially those " special " set up with some specific tonearms.
If those " special " set up for specific tonearms comes with the same criterion you used on the FR then all we have to wait that those set ups have and gives us higher distortions a lot higher that anything else ( Including Stevenson. ), so what's the advantage to have higher distortions?
Don't you think that these higher distortions makes no sense?. The problem with all this is that you only " talk and talk " proving nothing, even that 2% you states comes from nowhere ( ghosts everywhere. ) till you shows. You goes around around around and till today ( for years. ) you never stop and put the finger right on " focus ".
Here in México people say: " in blind land the one-eyed is king ", unfortunately in this forum there are not so many blind persons as you thinked.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
My mistake. If we take a effective length say 260mm and the inner groove at 50mm ( 5cms. ) Löfgren B calculation gives 1.3% and Löfgren " A " 0.8% and this is an extreme case at inner grooves that we don't find very often.
Now, if we change the data input to force better " figures " at inner groove that could be in detriment of higher distortions in the other 90% of the remaining LP grooves. Our today LOMC cartridges are better trackers than many vintages and the MM/MI ones are champions on this regards so I can't see that " dramatic problem " you states because I just tested a recording with almost no blank grooves at the end and with the XV-1s I can't detect a higher distortion level and neither with the 20SS .
To much " cream on your bananas ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
and that figures of distortion were at the last inner groove, the last one.
Raul. |
Tha's means at the last 1 seg. and not last 2-4 minutes as you states.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " Löfgren tried to minimize distortion over as large an area of the record as possible. He did so at the expense of the last and most critical inch of the groove, where the distortion level of his calculation sky rocket. "
this is a misunderstood, that's why exists Löfgren A and B where the highest diustortion at the last inner groove is different been lower on the Löfgren A solution.
So we have choices here at Löfgren's " house ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: Please makes things easy with out all useless bla-bla that means nothing and proves nothing.
Show/bring here the set up parameters for any of those especial tonearm geometry ( other than FR that you proved was a disater with your parameters. ) designs and then with those numbers we in this open forum and in front of all of us we can make the calculations a see if in reality exist significant ( that we can detect. ) lower distortions not only at inner groove but over the whole LP recorded area.
Facts are the ones that has the " last word ".
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: Please makes things easy with out all useless " words-bla " that means nothing and proves nothing.
Show/bring here the set up parameters for any of those especial tonearm geometry ( other than FR that you proved was a dissater with your parameters, even Stevenson was better. ) designs and then with those numbers we in this open forum and in front of all of us we can make the calculations and see if in reality exist significant ( if any ) lower distortions not only at inner groove but over the whole LP recorded area.
Facts are the ones that has the " last word ".
If you decide not to bring those numbers then we could think that you are trying to deceive us either because your ignorance level on the subject or in porpose. In the first case that you are doing in an " inconsciente " way and no harm at all we can't say the same if is on porpose.
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Genesis168: This could help you too:
www.vinylengine.com/tonearm_alignment_calculator.php
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Dertonarm: +++++ " Stevenson knew why he did went in other directions - he did so over 25 years later and with 8 years stereo available to the customer. " +++++
this proves that you are totally wrong again. Dertonarm you are " catched " in your own trick/trap that have no single " window or door " to come out.
In the example of that tonearm with 258mm on effective length Löfgren A at the last one inner groove has 0.809% against higher Stevenson figure that is: 0.962%. Even that you states that because Löfgren/Baerwald times were not the stereo ones and they don't take in count but you know that in those times as today: 2+2 is still 4, stereo or not microgroove or not.
Goech asks the same not only me and if you want I can show you here other Agoner's asking the same.
Read my last ( before this ) post, your call.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Genesis168: I understand what you mean with " sound " but we are not talking here about " sound " but what is right and what has higher distortions.
Btw, Stevenson don't fix any of the Löfgren shortcomings. Stevenson always has higher distortions even in the inner grooves, please read my 2-3 last posts or better yet use the VE last link I give to you and make for your self the calculations: it is extremely easy.
I don't give the Dennes white paper link for the figures and plot that you seen " many times " ( good ), I give you mainly for you read all what Dennes write other than those figures/plots/equations. I hope that with a new read for your self this time you understand in deep and clean/precise way: good luck!
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear Trabvrow: +++++ " 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? " +++++
Bravo!!! because things are so easy and not so " clouded " as he want to paint the picture.
+++++ " but picking a tonarm/cartridge set up geometry that has more tracing error will produce more tracing distortion, unless the mathematics used to figure these distortions are a lie. " +++++
I can't say it with better and simple understanding words. This tonearm/cartridge set up is not a Rocket to Júpiter!
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Jazzgene: Of course you can make the set up at random by ears only, at the begining of some of us on analog ( very old times. ) many of us that have cero know-how on the subject always made this set up almost by ear! so this is not a new menaing.
But ( always exist those " but ". ) that kind of ears set up has several disadvantages like: ears has no Universal " sensitivity ", the ears/mind are biased for what we like or not and that could be far away from real/true, it is almost imposible to make by ears set up a set up with low distortions, a cartridge/tonearm set up must works in any audio system and how could this be when you make the " voicing " in a very limited number of audio systems and audio items?, etc, etc.
Now, I can tell you that VPI was not made it ( set up geometry parameters ) only using ears at random overhang/offset angle. IMHO what he did was using known geometries and adjust by ears what he likes and that's all, changing some of those mentioned three input data. So in reality was not 100% by ears, the posibilities that you can be " there " by ears at random are infinitely low.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Jazzgene: VPI designer is a " weird/curious " person:
+++++ " VPI has conducted careful listening tests and determined that every
tonearm we tried sounded better with its mechanical anti-skating
disabled and the tracking force very slightly increased. "
++++
++++ " I did it by ear on my system, not by math on a computer. If you go by distortion you would never use tubes, only solid state " +++++
++++ " OVERHANG ADJUSTMENT:(FIG. 2 AT END OF MANUAL)
Do not go crazy over this adjustment. You do not know if the stylus is aligned
properly on the cantilever. You are also facing a constantly moving
target when playing a record. " +++++
yes, but he take it the work to build a protractor/jig to his customers where he states:
++++ " This adjustment will yield the lowest distortion in the last third of the record, the hardest to track, when playing a typical 12" record " +++++
Certainly not at random and fully by ears.
regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Dear T_bone: How many cartridges do you know? how many cartridges exist out there?, hundreds and each one resonate and performs in different way due to different cantilever build materials, different cantilever length, different cantilever shape, different stylus shape, different cartridge body build material, different suspension design and different suspension build material, different cartridge compliance, different cartridge weight, different, different and different all.
In the other side we have a tonearm that has its own resonance characteristics and different to other single tonearm out there due to different arm wand build materials, different headshell build materials, different arm wand shape, different tonearm bearings, different tonearm mounting base, different effective length, different, different, different and different all.
Each one of these cartridge and tonearm characteristics ( between other ones. ), one way or the other, has influence in the cartridge quality performance along accurate VT/SRA, VTF, Azymuth, overhang, offset angle, antiskate set up parameters.
Today no one here and no one out there can tell us in a precise way which and how is the influence of each one of those intrinsic cartridge characteristics, intrinsic tonearm characteristics and set up characteristics on the behavior and in the final cartridge quality performance for we can match for SURE one cartridge with one tonearm with the right set up on any recording.
The number of combinations of all those cartridge/tonearm/set up specific characteristics are almost infinity for we can say: " after our scientific research the only best match for this cartridge is this tonearm with this set up ", almost impossible we can do it.
But I don't finish yet, we have to take in count too the LP characteristics and characteristics on was is recorded there: off-center LP hole, waves all over the LP, different recorded velocities at different areas in the LP surface, thickness of the LP, resonance of the LP build material, etc, etc..
These LP characteristics has an influence too in the cartridge quality performance.
And now you think that an offset angle and overhang ( and we can ) different from what we can have through known equations ( Löfgren B, Baerwald, Stevenson. ) calculations choosing on those calculations whatever null points you want ( or what the tonearm designer choosed. ) could makes a difference that we can hear.
Adding thought to that: in theory ( for what you states in your idea. ) for each single cartridge/tonearm combination and for each one single LP we need different offset angle/overhang set up for be exactly " there ". Makes sense this for you?
I respect your opinion but I would like that you explain how is that? how can you/DT aisle/isolate that specific offset angle/overhang from all other each one cartridge/tonearm/set up/LP and from the combination of all those characteristics to know for sure that influence ( for the best or for the worst ) of the un-orthodox offset angle/overhang and that what we are hearing is because of them and not because the cartridge cantilever on playback is out of that offset angle set up that we made it in static playback condition or those tiny changes on VTA/SRA we have during playback due to LP imperfections where even there are tiny changes with the VTF too?
Where is that mathematic model that take in count all those different factors/characteristics that can tell us on playback ( motion not static way. ) which will be the quality performance level ( with lower distortions over the LP recorded area. ) in a cartridge and each one factor/characteristics " weight " in that quality performance level and of what kind is that influence?
I have no doubt and there is no doubt at all that you, Dertonarm, me or any one out there can't shows that great simulation model and IMHO till this happen ( I really hope some day its happen. I loved when this happen ) everything any one of us think or talk in the overall subject are mere speculations with no precise and proved foundation.
To make things " worst " we have to think that many of us likes some kind and different distortions and different distortions level even to some of us like higher distortions that other people or we are unaware to detect different distortion intensity levels due that our ears are not good enough, due that we are not trained to do it, due that we don't care about or due that our system has not that resolution level need it to.
We can go on on this thread making speculations of every kind but IMHO I think is useless.
Gentlemans, today we have what we have and nothing more. I hope we can improve in the future but certainly not an easy task on this whole cartridge/tonearm/LP subject. Today IMHO we have more questions than answers.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear friends: I think that is important to remember that what I'm talking over the thread and IMHO over those white papers outside is to align the cartridge stylus/cantilever where the pivoted tonearm is only a tool and a " must " for do it. From the tonearm we need to know only the effective length and that's all.
The star is the cartridge ( is the source if we don't take in count the LP it self. ) but it needs the tonearm to hold it.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
We know how its sounds but we don't know exactly and for sure why/how sounds that way, we all have only speculations about but nothing more than mere in good faith: not proved speculations.
As some of you I would like to have/know the true proved scientific overall theory behind the why's on quality performance level between one cartridge and one tonearm running a recorded specific LP and not only to improve my knowledge level on the whole subject but because when we know that ( in the future ) then we have the answers to all and each one questions and finally the right cartridge/tonearm set up.
Till that day IMHO we have to make our best effort with the proved tools we have on hand hopping/thinking that the best is waiting for us in the future.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear T_bone: Do you think that all or some of the tonearm designs out there taked in count all those characteristics ( cartridge, tonearm, set up and LP. ) I posted along that that tonearm design worked always best with the in theory tonearm design geometry choosed for those set up parameters ( overhang/offset angle. )?
I know that some tonearm designers are reading this thread and IMHO it will be " healthy " their each one opinion why they choosed what they choosed on the sole/aisle specific tonearm geometry design/parameters that is only one of several and IMHO not the main characteristic that affects the cartridge quality performance level.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
T_bone: We in our tonearm design don't take it either, we concentrate/focus on the main overall tonearm characteristics that makes " the difference " a true differences for the best and for the best quality performance with any known cartridge.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Thuchan: The best for cero traking error with many trade-offs as the ones you pointed out.
It is a good choice?, yes it is if fulfil your mind sound reproduction expectatives to handle a cartridge for this cartridge can shows you the best it has.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear T_bone: Normally the effective length does not change that input data, as I posted only if on porpose you want to change it.
The effective length is the main foundation on tonearm calculations through those known orthodox solutions ( Löfgren, Baerwald, Stevenson and the like. ) and is when you change effective length when all the other parameters calculated changed but not the other way around.
You need to read again those Dennes papers. Of course that you can manipulate/force on porpose every single input and output parameter on the geometry calculations but this is a different way/thing that IMHO is useless to discuss.
You can run an example of what happen on what you are asking: suppose that a tonearm design ( said: 270 mm on effective length. ) was designed according Löfgren B calculations and you want to make the cartridge set up with a different geometry like Baerwald or Stevenson geometry calculations for the set up, you can run this example through the " alignment calculator " tool in VE where you note that almost all the set up parameters ( including distortions level. ) calculated changed but the effective length is the same: does not changed.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear T_bone: I forgot: +++++ " It appears we agree on that point (that using a different alignment than mfr.'s original design could alter resonance characteristics). " +++++
no and I can't say for sure if tha's happen till I have on " hand " white papers that prove it. What I'm sure is that two different approaches/solutions/equations calculated set up cartridge parameters give us two different distortion level performances.
I was thinking that I left clear that I don't buy speculations and normally I don't like to speculate as you.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear T_bone: Of course that we always can change the EL and I posted we can.
On the other subject and due that's so simple through the different VE calculators ( thank you VE! ) when you or any owner of the DT protractor have it on hand you can take the parameters from cartridge/tonearm ( no big deal. ) where the protractor was used for the set up and use that " numbers/data " on the VE calculators and confirm if you have lower distortions over the LP recorded area against the normal calculations or against the manufacturer numbers.
In this subject we really don't have to argue/ask anything other that : after calculations shows lower distortions numbers/values or not?, easy!!!! , here the subjectivity does not count what you, me or any other person could think does not matters at all ( well always an opinion matters but you know what I mean. ) the easy VE calculations tell us the real distortions levels against other set ups.
Btw, when I talked of white papers it's only those simple calculations and that's all.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear friends: IMHO any manufacturer protractor with multiple set up alternatives, like the DT protractor, should/could gives his customers the chart with the different distortions level with each set up geometry/template for the set up.
IMHO we customers need to know at least which is the distoprtion level to decide which one to use, I think there is no reason for a protractor of this type does not comes with this main and critical customer information.
Dt, what do you think? could be?, thank you in advance.
Attitudes like the VPI manufacturer that undisclose the tonearm set up parameters IMHO is wrong because we are the customers and we have the right to know about, this kind of information is not a " subject " that you can attain a patent and even if yes: which the problem? why manufacturers put on sale audio items for " blind/unable to speak " people that things are we are not " blind " and certainly we can speak to ask.
Anyway, only a thought.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Of course that to make comparisons the effective length must be the same because if we increment ( any increment, it does not matters how tiny. ) the EL distortions figures goes lower, the same happen when we increment the most inner groove distance on Löfgren A/B calculations.
R. |
Dear T_bone: The Exel spreadsheet is very good idea.
About an increment on the EL the " land " you have to move is limited by the headshell slots and is posible that 3-4 mm makes no diffrence that you can hear.
If these kind of changes on the geometry set up beeen the only factor on the cartridge quality performance then is for sure that you can detect a minimum/tiny EL changes but there are other factors and IMHO other very important ones that a some levels preclude we can detect tiny EL changes. everything is important on cartridge set up but IMHO VTA/SRA and Azymuth makes the higher differences ( other than a matched tonearm. ).
Other that to use any of the protractors out there ( DT included. ) IMHO ( if we want to stay with mind on calm, even if we can't hear some geometry set up changes. ) a good alternative is to measure the most inner groove in our LP collection and take a choice with foundation on what are that LP collection if the 80%-90% of the Lps measures around 60mm then the IEC standard is the best choice in either Löfgreen A/Baerwald and Löfgren B and from these two if we want lower distortion at innergrooves then the choice is Löfgren A/Baerwald that additional gives you the same tracking error between null points and outer null points: this is very good compromise.
In the other side if the 80%-90% of the LPs in your collection are around 50mm or lower then you can choice between Stevenson or Löfgren A/Baerwald with non-IEC standard for the most inner grove data instead you change that input data for 50mm. I prefer this Löfgren A/baerwald that gives you sligthly ( tiny ) higher distortion that Stevenson at the very inner grooves but with lot lower distortion levels on all the remaining recorded LP area: this for me is very good compromise too.
That's why Löfgren A/Baerwald is the most used geometry set up.
IN the other side IMHO Stevenson was and is used by Japanese manufacturers because ( with all respect ) they did not a in deep analisis on the overall subject and its different alternatives, I already posted that I know this because I asked them about with no certain answers that could tell me they have in deep knowledge.
T_bone if it is true that this geometry set up cartridge/tonearm is something/subject really simple it could be very complex if we don't understand its foundation and alternatives.
I know many people don't understand yet and I don't blame any one for that. As I posted reviewers, audio distributors, tonearm designers and audio " gurus " does not understand in deep either, this is where a thread like this has a critical an important role for we improve our each one knowledge level on the whole subject.
The real value of discussions like the ones we have here and especially between DT and I IMHO always help ( one way or the other ) to lear, I can tell you for sure that I learned here too.
My attitude to " win " a discussion that I had on the past I left on the past even that sometimes you could think I want to beat DT or other person but it is not in that way, if I " insist " is because either I don't find true arguments against in the other person or because I'm challenged my own arguments/opinion till its fall/down or confirm it.
One of the best way to learn is through discussion with other people if what you move is to learn and not only who is right where you can't learn.
Regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Dear Halcro: The FR64 manufacturer numbers are for Stevenson IEC geometry set up ( and Mr. Ikeda don't take the exact Stevenson parameters but only an aproximation: he put for example 15mm on overhang instead the calculated number: 14.91mm. he did the same for the offset angle and pivot to spindle distance. ).
With the FR 245mm efective length and 230.09 pivot to spindle distance the Stevenson IEC calculations gives you: 0.728 on maximum distortion with 0.477 as average distortion.
If you change the pivot to spindle distance to 231.5 then the new Stevenson IEC calculations gives you: 246.324mm EL with 14.824 on overhang and maximum distortion is 0.724 an average one is 0.474.
Changing only the overhang to 14.5mm gives you a maximum distortion 0.724 with an average of 0.475.
Now for each one of this calculations the offset angle is different. The FR manufacturer offset number is 21.5° that's is greater than the 21.149° and 21.269° on those calculations.
So, if you don't change the 21.5° original/manufacturer cartridge offset angle then what you have is higher distortion levels that the ones here calculations showed.
If all this is true IMHO that you like better a higher distortions set up is not at all something weird, all the time some of us like some kind of higher distortions than lower ones.
I don't have mounted my FR right now ( its borrowed to some one that want it. ) so I can't make tests for my self.
Please do it a favor and change that near Stevenson IEC set up for Löfgren A/Baerwald as follows:
overhang 16.8mm, offset angle 22.4° and pivot to spindle distance 228.2
please test this set up and compare against the one you are using and appreciate you comeback with your comments.
Thank you in advance.
regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Halcro, of course that you have to re-set the VTA/SRA and Azymuth for the new geometry set up. Sorry to take your time but things could be that you could like the Löfgren/Baerwald geometry. We don't know yet.
regards and enjoy the music,
Raul. |
Halcro: you said that you was using 230mm pivot to spindle on Baerwald and this is for a 246.736mm on EL that is diffferent from the 245mm manufacturer number and that gives you different overhang and offset angle.
Anyway if we/you want to compare the same 246.324mm EL as with Stevenson ( at 231.5 pivot to spindle. ) then on Baerwald the overhang is 16.76mm with an offset angle 22.29°.
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
Btw, the maximum distortion on Baerwald is 0.598 with an average one 0.390. These figures are lower than the Stevenson ones you are using by around 23% lower.
Regards and enjoy the music,
raul. |
