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
ddriveman
171 posts
 
Dertonarm,

Thanks for details. Will try to see if I can snag the Dennesen protractor.

Oilmanmojo,

I too would think that a linear tracker would put more pressure on stylus and thus cause some cantilever deflection. NOt aving any experience with linear arms, I cannot provide any direct experience however. But I was thinking that perhaps cartridges without cantilevers e.g. Ikeda 9REX and Decca London type cartrdiges might be a better match for linear trackers. The Ikeda cartridges though need heavy mass arms whihc is typically not found in linear trackers. Does anyone out there have any experience using cantileverless cartrdiges with linear trackers? Seems to me it could be a great match - the immediacy and dynamics of cantileverless cartridges with the excellent imaging, soundstage and openness of linear trackers due to reduce tracking errors.
lewm
12,456 posts
 
I am with Dertonearm on this one. There are SO many sources of phase error in a typical audio system and in anyone's listening room that what's happening with the stylus is a drop in the bucket. Plus also the "phase linearity" of a particular linear tracking tonearm would be a product of its mechanism, as well as of its basic topology. So, I think there may be large differences among different linear trackers. But maybe "phase" is the wrong term to describe what Mike might be talking about, as he suggests.
frogman
7,356 posts
 
Ddriveman, using my (now defunct) old Decca London in my ET2 was one of the most frustrating experiences I have ever had in this hobby. The combination did some things, particularly in the area of micro-dynamics, amazingly well. You want to talk about hearing the subtletlies of a violin player's bowing, or the fine gradations of a string section's crescendo, the immediacy of rim-shots? Fantastically realistic, the best I have heard in my system. Comparisons to my pivoted Syrinx PU3 showed that there may have been, in fact, be something synergistic going on with the ET2 and Decca in this regard. Dynamics with the Syrinx/Decca were good, but not on the same level of realism as with the ET2. This was important because with other cartridges the ET2 could sound VERY slightly polite compared to the Syrinx. Although I think this may have been partly due to the Syrinx's comparatively less even high frequencies. These are comparisons with these two arms only, and not necessarily indicative of any general traits of linear vs. pivot in this respect.

Now, the frustration was the result of what was inconsistent tracking ability with the ET2/Decca. Not bad, but clearly not as surefooted as in the Syrinx. The ET2 was a stellar tracker with other cartridges. Particularly with low compliance MC's (Mepearson??). I was never able to reconcile these results, since logic told me that the fine deliniation of micro-dynamics should be the result of good tracking ability. Perhaps Dertonarm can chime in on this apparent contradiction. Add to this my inability to ever get anywhere to a reasonable amount of grounding noise with the Decca, and I simply gave up trying to make the combo work. But the potential was clearly there.
frogman
7,356 posts
 
Drop in the bucket, yes. But, have we not shown time and time again that errors at the source turn out ot be the most harmfull? "Garbage in, garbage out", and all that?

Is it too far fetched to assume that the effect of a phase error added to an already phase distorted waveform is, in absolute terms, greater than the effect of the same amount of phase distortion added to a more phase correct waveform? In other words, the effect is more than one of simply cumulative effect. I realize that this may be completely off the wall, especially considering my very limited technical knowledge, but I always keep going back to the idea that there are things going on with music playback that we don't fully understand. The importance of what goes on at the source is always easy to understand.
dgarretson
2,588 posts
 
Frogman, I agree. It is always surprising how obvious a single variable change can be-- particularly at the source.

Ddriveman, you may be onto something: Vic of Trans-Fi wrote me that the Decca Reference is his favorite cartridge on Terminator linear arm.
More to discover