2. analog
  3. 1269720804

The pivoted arm experiment is over

I started the thread titled "are linear tracking arms better than pivoted arms" and as a result of the many thought provoking threads that were posted, I decided to revisit pivoted arms again.

First of all, I want to say thanks to Dertonarm for starting me on this journey and all of the help he gave me in setting up my arm. As some of you recall, I purchased a Fidelity Research FR64s, a NOS Orsonic headshell, and an AQ LeoPard tonearm cable. This was all mounted on a new armboard on my VPI TNT table. After I had removed the ET-2 from the TNT and while I was waiting for the new arm and all of the other parts to arrive, I went ahead and did some maintenance to the TNT. I removed the bearing assembly and took it to a machinist for inspection. He didn't like the fact that there was .004 clearance between the spindle and bushing. He pressed out the old bushings, machined new ones, line bored them, and pressed them in. There is now .001 clearance between the spindle and the new bushings. The machinist also micro polished the spindle, cleaned all of the remaining parts, put in new oil, and declared it finished. Dertonarm was emphatic that I install the FR64s 231.5 mm from the spindle to the center of the bearing instead of 230mm as the manual recommends (as well as the template FR provide with the arm. The machinist made a tool from barstock that fits over the spindle of the TNT and has a hole drilled at the other end with the center at exactly 231.5mm. He machined a tramel point that fits in the hole so you can mark the armboard with the exact spot for the correct distance. This tool was used on my new armboard and the hole was precisely drilled for the FR64s. I used the Dennesen Soundtracker to set up the cartridge as recommended by Dertonarm and VTF was set using a digital scale. I have the SDS for my TNT and speed was checked and set using the KAB strobe. I am telling you all of this so that you understand that I went through great pains to install this arm correctly. The cartridge I used during this time was my almost new Benz Glider SL.

I found the FR64s much more difficult/time consuming to set up compared to other pivoted arms I have used over the years. Some of you may disagree, but this is my experience. Most pivoted arms, once you have the cartridge installed, you slide on the main counterweight, make sure the anti-skating is set to zero, move the counterweight until the arm floats level, set the counterweight scale to 0, and then turn it until you have the correct VTF and bingo-Jed's a millionaire. Then you set your anti-skating for whatever makes your socks roll up and down, and your pretty much done. After that you just start dialing your cartridge alignment in with your favorite alignment jig and readjust your VTF. Not so with the FR64s. The FR64s has a main counterweight, a dynamic stabilizer weight, and an anti-skating weight that all must be installed. I am not going to go through all of the necessary steps to get this arm set up, but trust me, if you have never set up a FR64s, it is more difficult than your average pivoted arm that I am used to. Again thanks to Dertonarm for all of the help during this process and Syntax offered some help to me as well which I also appreciate.

Before I removed the ET-2 I broke out a NOS Maxell UD 35-180 tape (I love this tape by the way). I recorded a selection of songs (at 15 ips 2 track on my Otari MX-55)that would showcase the FR64s arm's ability to boogie in the bass as well as track the many dynamic swings that many of these cuts have. I recorded the following songs:

Lyle Lovett-My baby don't tolerate
Lucinda Williams-Righteously
Herb Alpert-Rotation (from the MoFi version)
Talking Heads-Burning down the house
Herbie Hancock-Rocket (from the 12" single)

After I had the FR64s installed for about a week and had it as tweaked out as I knew how to make it, I re-recorded the above selections in reverse order on the same tape. That way at least I had one cut that would play back to back.

Now some of you had sent me emails asking if I had any preliminary findings to share and I demurred. I never claimed to have the fastest ears in the west so I like to take my time and make sure I know what I am talking about so I don't have to eat a plateful of crow later (which I have certainly done before). Well, the jury is in for me, and it is my opinion that the ET-2 is much the better arm. The only thing the ET-2 gives up to the FR64s is a bit of bass punch, but I don't think the bass from the 64s sounds as natural as that from the ET-2. The bass from the 64s almost seems detached from the rest of the music if that makes any sense. There is a myth that linear tracking arms don't have good bass or can't reproduce the bottom octave at all. This is nonsense in my opinion. I can speak for the ET-2 and tell you confidently that it reproduce great bass.

MikeL and I sort of got into an off-topic discussion on the TP forum. MikeL stated (and please correct me if I not capturing the essence of what you said Mike) that he thought his Rockport linear tracking arm was superior to pivoted arms because it tracks the grooves the way they were cut and that as a result, it doesn't have any phase errors. MikeL went on to say that all pivoted arms only have two null points where the geometry is correct and that results in phase errors across the remaining points outside of the null. I didn't agree with Mike's point about phase-I thought Mike was confusing zenith with overhang. Incorrect zenith will affect phase, but I certainly had never heard that pivoted arms caused phase problems across the record except for the null points. What Mike did say and I agree with is that you can tell a big difference between linear tracking arms and pivoted arms. For me, a properly set up linear tracking arm sounds like a master tape with all that implies vice sounding like a good recording. There is a "wholeness" about the sound of linear tracking arms. Music just flows like it does in real life and it feels right. The FR64s and other pivoted arms don't capture that. They almost seem like they are stitching the music together as they go-almost digital like in comparison to linear tracking arms if that makes any sense to you. Another apt comarison would be looking at a picture taken by a cheap digital camera and comparing that picture to one taken from a top-notch film camera. You really can't compare the two in terms of ultimate sound quality as the linear tracking arm is just cut from a different cloth. I know that will set some people's teeth on edge, but sorry, the truth is the truth. I really do think the secret is the fact that the linear tracking arm is tracing the record the way it was cut instead of tracing an arc across the record with incorrect geometry 99% of the time. You can argue that the errors are slight when using 10" and longer tonearms, but errors they are. Also, the other benefit to linear tracking arms in my mind is no anti-skating is required. That is one less thing to fiddle with and neurose over. The sound of music from a linear tracking arm lives and breathes in a way that music does in real life and it is all cut from the same cloth. Pivoted arms that I have heard can't capture that. Unless you have heard a good linear tracking arm in your system, you won't know what I am talking about and you can be happy with what you have.

In closing, I know that the FR64s is not the most expensive pivoted arm in the world and some of you may sniff your upturned nose and say I should have used a "better" arm. I am really not going to listen to any of that drivel. I spent around $3K setting up this experiment and I know that the FR64s is considered a damn fine tonearm which is why I bought it. I am also finished with discussions about linear tracking arms being harder on cartridges and they can't have great bass. I had many years of great service with my Van den Hul MC-10 in an ET-2. My Denon 103R did develop a slight twist in the cantilever, but that may or may not have been caused by the ET-2. You are supposed to use high compliance cartridges with the ET-2 and not low compliance cartridges like the Denon 103R. The Benz Glider is a much better match with the ET-2 and it sounds way better than the 103R. Even if it is true that linear tracking arms cause greater wear to the cartridge suspension-so what? Most audiophiles change their cartridges more frequently than they change their underwear and they would never know. MikeL has the same experience that I had and that is he saw no wear over years with his Van den Hul. But even if it is true that linear tracking arms cause greater wear and tear to a cartridge, that is a small price to pay for the superior sound over the life of the cartridge.

I reinstalled my ET-2 last night and I haven't stopped grinning since. There is no doubt that if I would have made the recording of the ET-2 with the bearing improvements to my TNT, it would sound even better than it does. My LP setup has never sounded better now that my TNT bearing has been massaged and the ET-2 is back. I stayed up until way-late o'clock last night because I just didn't want to stop listening to music. Over and out.
mepearson
mepearson OP
100 posts
 
Thanks for all the kind comments and I am going to try and answer some questions that were asked. With regards to what device I used to set up the FR64s, I used the Dennesen Soundtracker. It is Dertonarm's opinion that the Soundtracker is the best tool to use for setting up the FR64s. I think this was the only thing I actually owned and didn't have to purchase for this experiment.

Kaput-According to Dertonarm, setting up the dynamic stabilizer is accomplished after you have floated the arm and before you set VTF. With the arm still floating and the antiskating disengaged, move the tonearm across the surface of the record and adjust the stabilizer weight so that any place you move the arm, the arm stays in place and doesn't drift.

Frogman-Bruce Thigpen told me to use high compliance cartridges.

Alun-Why did you have to tweak with your pump? For the here and now, I am using two ET pumps and a surge tank. I am interested in trying higher pressure, but I never have to mess with my pumps or surge tank now which is cool. If you end up with a pivoted arm-let me know how that goes for you.

And Travbow-I agree with Frogman. I know of no better tonearm that you can buy for the price of a used ET-2. I don't know of a better tonearm you can buy at many times the price of a used ET-2. I don't think the word "steal" accurately conveys what a bargain it is. There were two great minds behind the design of the ET-2 (Bruce Thigpen and Edison Price)and it is evident every time you use it. It is definitely one of the most undervalued items in high-end audio today that I am aware of.

Peterayer-No, Dertonarm never got to hear my setup. He lives in Europe and I live in Indiana. I sent him numerous pictures of my setup and lots of email. As for your other question, I came to my conclusions based on both listening to the tape and listening to many LPs. Playing Dire Straits first LP is what finally drove me over the edge and motivated me to remove the FR64s and reinstall the ET-2. This LP is very musically involving if played back correctly. When played back through the FR64s, the only moving I wanted to do was to get up and take the record off.
dertonarm
1,042 posts
 
Peterayer, no - I have not heard the set-up in Mepearson home. My assistance was by email only and I couldn't verify the results.
As for the Mint LP traktor tool - I favor the original aluminum Dennesen Soundtraktor as it gives excellent results with any tonearm not calculated on IEC-based geometry.
The original geometry of the FR-64s as given in the manual is NOT optimal. The maximum error can be reduced by another 30% if geometry is optimized.
I have written about this is length in the "oldskool tonearm"-thread which was eventually removed from file.
I can't really comment on the results of Mepearsons shoot-out between the two tonearms.
While I too have owned the ET2 and 2.5 for years and still hold them in high esteem among tonearms in general and linear trackers in particular, I do know that in my set-ups and with all cartridges the FR-64s outperforms the ETs in terms of speed, detail, dimensionality, physical presence, micro-dynamics and especially regarding air, punch and low-level detail in the low and lowest register.
I am too puzzled that the FR-64s was such a pain to set-up in this shoot-out, as to me (maybe due to extreme routine - don't know) this is still the most easy of all pivot tonearms to set-up. But then I have set-up the FR-64s about on 2 dozen TTs and have mounted in the various samples about 5 dozen cartridges.
mepearson OP
100 posts
 
I didn't mean to place undue emphasis on the work involved in setting up the FR64s. This was my first encounter with the FR64s and there is more work involved in setting it up vice other pivoted arms I have owned in the past and it puzzles me that Dertonarm says it is the most easy of tonearms to set up. I have never owned a pivoted arm that had a dynamic stabilzer weight. The stabilizer weight is one more thing to install and adjust that other pivoted arms don't have. And when your setting the stabilizer weight to the correct position, you have to dork with the anti-skating arm/weight to make sure it stays disengaged. Dertonarm recommended placing a match box under the anti-skate arm to hold it in place and that was a great tip. Now that I understand it much better, setting one up again would go much faster. It doesn't help that the owner's manual covers 3 different arms and is full of contradictions. Dertonarm helped me every step of the way and I really appreciated his help. Do I wish that Dertonarm could have been here and supervised the setup in person? Absolutely. Do I feel confident that I did a good job of setting this arm up? Yes.
frogman
7,355 posts
 
What a curious bunch we audiophiles are! Once again, we see that an opportunity (the original linear/pivot arm thread) to express strong opinions, biases, and even to grand-stand a bit, draws a large number (269) of posts. Yet, the follow-up, which is the result of a lot of work, dedication, and which makes a significant contribution to analog aficionados on this forum, draws a comparatively low (15) number of posts.

Sibelius is quite right; ultimately, what Mepearson's results show is that he prefers the sound of the ET2 to the sound of the FR. But, and this is a very big but, in light of the unquestionable thoroughness, and clarity of Mepearson's "process" at arriving at an admittedly personal conclusion, it should cause some to reconsider their positions. Or at the very least, acknowledge that one of the great truisms of our hobby is still relevant. That is, that numbers only tell part of the story. To not honor that truism is to not honor the music.
dgarretson
2,588 posts
 
MePearson, excellent experiment & review-- which as an owner of both a linear tonearm and VPI TNT I particularly enjoyed. Not to over-complicate things, but I wonder whether some of your satisfaction with a linear arm may owe to arm in context of TNT. I took the TNT through a DIY mod process that revealed how much performance is left untapped in stock unit, particularly in control of vibration through bearing housing, suspension footers, and subplatforms. Knowing something of what can be done, I wonder whether the added decoupling available with an air bearing may be advantageous independent of linear layout. I suppose the only way to know for sure would be to compare the arms once again on a different turntable....
More to discover